wednesday 5th august 2015 · action plan (updated from development day 2015) theme issue to be...

Chair: Joe McKeown

Lead/Papers

1. Apologies

2. AOB

3. Minute of Previous Meeting: 7th May 2015

Note of Meeting - 2015-05-07.docx

4. Matters Arising

(a) Partnership Forum Workplan

(b) Workload Survey

(c Digital Strategy

(d) LSM – job description review – update

npfdevelopmentdayactionplanupdated 2015.doc

5. Change Board – Sustainability, Quality and Improvement Programme

(a) Draft Project Initiation Documents

(i) Reporter Decision Making

(ii) Court

draft PID for Change Board June '15.docx

RDM PID v0 1.doc

6. Draft HO Partnership Forum Remit

STANDING ITEMS

Gillian B

7. Health, Wellbeing and Staff Survey Group Update Neil

8. Equalities Network

note of meeting 9615.docx

9. HR Sub Group Update Susan

10. Financial Update

Ross

11.. Risk reference group

Neil

12. Date of Next Meeting : 26th November 2015

A G E N D A

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FORUM

Wednesday 5th August 2015 10.30 am – 1 pm

Boardroom, Ochil House, Stirling

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration/UNISON Equalities Network Note of meeting - 10 June 2015 Present Neil Murdoch Jennifer Orren Martin Morris Carole Wilkinson Nick Hobbs (by VC) Nicola Crawford Neil Hunter 1. Apologies Joe Rafferty Lucy Hanson Karen Wallace Kirsty Morrison has had to withdraw from the network. Anne- Marie McGinley has expressed an interest. NM will follow this up.

Action: NM - immediate

2. MOLM 4.4.2 Grammatical error 3. Workplan/Matters Arising To adjust work plan to ensure more balance across meetings as there are spikes in the March period.

Action: NM/NH – by next meeting

(a) Women into Leadership Noted SEPA have offered advice on recent work they have undertaken. Key issues which have emerged are:

Perceptions of long hours and lack of flexibility

Lack of opportunities for lateral development

Management development tools only available once management status attained

Some areas male dominated and a bit of a ‘lads club’

Need for networking, mentoring and visible role models

Managers tended to be technical but not good with people , although this varied For the leaders

Networking and mentoring would help – external

They felt empowered to make change

They could manage their diaries better to achieve a good work life balance

They sometimes felt isolated

They felt they were better at identifying talented people (men and women) and nurturing them

Agreed Way forward – focus groups. Need to think about capacity and external expertise and capacity. Agreed way ahead was to:-

launch a series of focus groups and

support it from within the network and as a network activity –

suggest support from within the SCRA Board, SCRA staff and network members. Timeline to September 15, taking August to plan and publicise.

Action:- NM/NH/SD to work up proposal and agree timeline for focus groups involving network and SCRA staff/Board

4. Children’s Rights Impact Assessment NHo updated – this work aimed to integrate children’s rights impact assessment with equality rights assessment into a more holistic approach. A draft guidance note was circulated. Discussion took place on how the integration of EIA and CRA can be practically taken forward. The aim at this stage would be trial the approach of an integrated assessment – to see whether any adjustments to our existing approach will be required to make integration successful.

Action: NHo will progress with trial/test of concept - asap

5. LGBT Action Plan A number of detailed actions are underway as part of our Mainstreaming and Equality Outcomes. NM provided a progress report:-

Training – uptake continues to be slower than we would want a – a number of planned activities are underway – including promoting wider human rights underpinning, using training graduates as ambassadors across the wider SCRA service.

Straight Allies – NM will work with other network members to think through innovative ways to take this forward.

Staff survey – agreed that this particular staff survey the protected characteristics are not being captured – the organisational emphasis needs to be on self reported completion of iTrent. Agreed a programme of work with SCRA and UNISON on this.

Agreed – to recommend revised diversity monitoring form to HR for full incorporation in future recruitment processes.

Action – NM/SD to take proposal forward with HR Sub Group of NPF

6. NDPB Equalities Network NM updated on content of recent meetings:-

Mainstreaming reports – further analysis from EHRC on NDPB is about to be released. Still significant gaps in some plans/areas.

BSL trial – still to confirm that providers/interpreters are PVG checked.

Pay equality – some strengthening of approach in some NDPB’s required about vertical and horizontal separation of grades.

7. Justice Board Equality and Diversity NM updated:-

Positive action measures – to tackle under representation in justice bodies

Unconscious bias – approach still to be developed. SCRA responded positively to the original proposal.

8. EIA – VR/VER Changes suggested – in relation to the criteria for VR/VER and the gender statistics.

Action:- NM will revise and complete – immediate

9. Translation and Interpretation Work ongoing in relation to SCRA’s legal duties, the duties of other agencies and towards a standardised practice approach in the organisation. EMT will consider a report in the course of the next week and this will come to next Equalities Network.

Action:- NM/NH to agenda for next meeting.

10. Locality/Team update a) Integration ‘people’ projects ongoing in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire – noted the

issues that overlap the physical, social and work practice issues. b) MA programme – next phase will be to recruit 3 new MA’s in Stirling, Ayrshire

and Highlands/Islands. c) Glasgow – focus on ‘better hearings’ project – a more consistent approach to

quality, delivery and outcomes.

d) All Localities working on Locality Plans at present. Need to ensure that EIA’s are undertaken.

11. Date of next meeting 2 September 2015, 10.30am - Ochil House

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration/UNISON National Partnership Forum Action Plan (updated from Development Day 2015)

Theme Issue to be resolved Action Required Who/When Progress at 2015

Partnership agreement

Working to the detail of the partnership agreement Balanced with the need to develop effective day to day relationships that are less formal, more flexible

LMT’s to review their compliance/alignment with PA PR/CE and Branch Secretary to be available to support/advise Localities and attend LMT’s. Input from Learning and OD Manager/HR Business Partners as required

LMTs PR/CE and Branch Secretary

LMT’s have undertaken substantial work over the last 2 years in this direction and have developed and in some areas have adapted/strengthened Partnership Agreement locally

Early engagement in partnership

Commitment to early stage engagement – before ideas are firmly developed and positions adopted – a culture of open testing of ideas in formation needs to be in place – this requires trust in each other to create adequate and safe informal space for this to happen

Assess frequency/structure of locality development events – visibility of locally generated change and action. Improved day to day ‘informal’ communication between managers and partnership representatives

LMT and partnership reps

Development day 15 suggests this is work that required ongoing diligence in each area. Mainly by omission – but needs more focus and disciplined application.

Capacity for partnership

Creative ways to deal with time pressures

Planning in partnership time to local workload management/resource allocation arrangements.

LMT’s Some areas have undertaken workload management exercises and

factored in facility time to ensure engagement is sustainable and well planned/managed. Need to consider whether this can be a feature elsewhere.

Capacity for partnership

Sufficient coverage of stewards/reps

Branch Secretary

As above – alignment of Stewards to roles has helped.

Supporting partnership at Locality level

LMT’s to work towards strengthening:- Plan LMT times/dates in advance forward plan agenda’s (to allow consultation/views to be taken) Increased confidence and use of options assessment methodologies as a means to better engagement, commitment to cabinet decision making, predicated on full discussion Clearer unambiguous recording of decisions, including dissent Recognition of areas of potential disagreement – this necessitates and indicates the need for an open

Consider appropriate administrative support arrangements for LMT’s if sustainable. Lead responsibilities within LMT for key tasks Further support/confidence on planning skills

No sense of progress on administrative support to LMT’s Sufficient forward planning of agenda’s remains problematic Much improved sense of LMT/UNISON lead areas in LMT’s and linked to Locality Plans Service becoming more confident on planning and

partnership approach, through dialogue, airing of views and reaching a conclusion linked to disciplined implementation and commitment to review where lack of consensus remains. Speedy, effective communication back to teams to increase visibility and resonance/relevance

Identify LMT role lead for brief initial comms

engagement Speed of comms outwards remains a very real challenge across the country

Supporting partnership at local level

better, quicker brief outs an communication from the National Partnership Forum revise membership of NPF to ensure better Locality representation

PR/CE and Branch Secretary PR/CE and Branch Secretary

From Feb 2014 Feb 2014

Variable success – needs much more consistency Achieved – keep under review

Culture for partnership

Re-commitment to positive behaviours in partnership – respectful listening, appropriate challenge, understanding of each others roles, demonstrated commitment to partnership ways of being. Dealing with the sense of tokenism - promoting a sense of genuineness in ways of action and though, words and deeds

Locality based partnership development activities across the year – self assessment activities

LMT’s and NPF

Variable progress – but progress everywhere – needs to be brought up to same speed across country

4

National Partnership Forum Development Day – 25 March 2015 1. A more consistent approach

Partnership remains variable in different parts of country e.g. staff feel unhappy in some areas because they are not consulted

Engagement issue – some people think playing catch-up - Need earlier engagement - Minimum level of engagement - No representation in some offices Engagement early Can feel painful at the time – good use of time and energy [ ] - investment

2. The purpose of engagement

Communication and Clarity – need to be clear about what we are engaging in. Not necessarily what is going to happen sometime its about how to facilitate a change

Satisfy range of expectations – Central was an example – but had to have a consultation and engagement

Recording discussion behind decision

Merit in feeding in views regardless of outcomes Engagement

Trial-error-learn

But keep trying – examples of where this has happened

Honesty and openness – some progress here 3. Capacity

Mix of roles – some gaps (e.g Manager – SA (Rec) Operational Capacity Capacity remains difficult + some stewards under pressure Some teams have taken opportunity to do planned workload/caseload – adjustments Times spend in generally [ ] 4. People and Workforce Demographics/talents/skills/experience of the future – new type of workforce Different (unknown?) expectations The Job Complexity and lawyers Consistency plus avoiding one size fits all

5

Diversity of tasks

Need to engage people’s skills/knowledge more – still tendency to go “top down”

Engage people in redesign – avoid later problems by engaging people earlier

5. Culture More open/progressive approach to management/leadership – maintaining that Culture Sense of belonging and ownership in SCRA Common purpose

6. Relationships Manager and employee – more constructive partnership approach HR/UNISON on most (but not all) occasions Manager and employee – more constructive partnership approach HR/UNISON on most (but not all) occasions. Can influence future direction

7. Partnership Investment of time and resources for good return

Respect, Trust for Roles Business Partners model adds value Best interests Roles clear Rep/HR/Manager UNISON role Can set as key broker for managers/employees to get to settlement\ UNISON seen as a useless thing – not representing members

CMS case example

1. Many lessons to learn about future re-design + engagement of trade union and role

2. Powerful honesty in comms 3. Keeping comms alive was crucial

8. SWOT

Strengths - Serving us well - Workloading

Sub-groups - Policy – joint policy development writing - Framework in place – needs developed

6

- Workforce very dedicated - One Trade Union – single union agreement

Challenges - Views from whole staff group – geographical representation - Need to facilitate partnership working

Opportunities - Letting people know the extent to which they can influence outcomes - Promoting success

Threats - Finance

Partnership Agreement - Engagement maybe a bit later than it should be - Gauge how partnership working - Geographical differences plus perceptions of how it’s working - Need to stick with model for as long as possible

External Environment - - Corporate Parenting - Reduced Resources - GIRFEC - Reduced budgets for partners - More obligations – improved performance - More engagement with partners to inform them of our needs - Inconsistent use of roles – seniors + assistant

9. National Partnership Priorities (a) Capacity for Reps – can we create some guidance around this

What is expectation

What are ideas/existing ways of doing this (b) Setting agendas and doing Minutes/Actions Points

Expectations

Examples of good practice

Achieving the balance (c) Budget Issues

How involved should UNISON be in challenge and review – locally/nationally (d) Continued Development of LMT’s

Analysis and views on best practice

Support and guidance

7

Tag Cloud – 25 March – top 50 words recorded in

group sessions

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration UNISON National Partnership Forum 5th August 2015 Present Paul Harkness Alistair Hogg Ross MacKenzie Joe Rafferty Gillian Brown Tom Philliben Jill Richards Lynne Hobbs Joe McKeown Adele McCormick Neil Hunter Jim McClafferty Susan Deery (item 6 onwards) 1. Apologies Nicola Crawford Jackie Aylott 2. AOB SCRA management Standards 3. MOLM Accepted as an accurate minute 4. Matters Arising (a) NPF workplan NH presented update on workplan. Sense of progress in most areas. The workplan in 14/15 remains broadly valid – but key areas which require development this year are:

Capacity for engagement

Forward planning/support for LMT’s

Outward communication

JMcK felt there were lessons to be learned from some areas such as Glasgow and South East) about trying to hardwire capacity and the positive impact that this can have. GB asked about the ‘area wide’ meetings and whether they would be a future feature. TP/AH are in discussion about this and are thinking through a more informal set of arrangements where people can engage and share – without the formality of organisational level events. This will also assist with some elements of accountability and communication. Discussion took place on networks and fora that do exist how they are managed and what their focus, remit and mode is. (b) Head Office Partnership Forum Following a recent HO partnership meeting, GB had revised the Partnership Agreement to reflect this new arrangement. Proposed addition to the National Partnership Agreement to include Head Office Partnership, membership and functions. The amendments to the Partnership Agreement were approved with additional work to be undertaken to review escalation procedure to ensure consistency of involvement of SOM and Heads of Service. Action: NH/GB to review and update further (c) Digital Strategy NH updated on the progress of the Digital Strategy As well as NPF the Strategy has been discussed an agreed at:-

The multi – agency Children’s Hearings Improvement Partnership (CHIP)

SCRA and CHS Board’s

Scottish Government Digital Strategy Team /Collaborative A great deal of coalescing has been evident from partners around the vision and aspiration. A number of comments on delivery and specific implementation arrangements have been raised and this is now the focus the next phase of the work:

A delivery plan over 5 years

An investment plan for the strategy

The appointment of a joint Head of IT between CHS and SCRA Further updates to be provided as required to NPF and via SCRA Change Board. A joint Digital Strategy Board will be established and UNISON involvement will be important.

5. Sustainability, Quality and Performance programme NH introduced. The SQP programme had a number of strands – two key programmes over the next 18 months would focus on Reporter Decision Making and Court – core areas of organisational functions we have not touched for some time. The Project Initiation Documents (PID’s) were first drafts and are being brought to NPF for early engagement and to ensure a rounded and inclusive approach. (a) Reporter Decision Making PID AH/TP introduced. The PID outlines the potential scope of the project, outcome and aspirations – to use skills and knowledge across the organisation to best effect and support sustainable, high quality and improved Reporter Decision making, look at deployment of roles, impact etc. A range of things are not in scope (court and appeals, amendments to job descriptions, structural changes etc.). Discussion took place on scope and remit, membership of the project group and ensuring that the right people are involved and that contemporary operational and practice experience is reflected. The number of practising Reporters should be increased to ensure it is adequately reflective. The locus of activity will be developed as the programme kicks off. Not all the work can be done in the group itself and will require different approaches. (b) Court PID NH/TP introduced. The project ambition to is to develop the court strategy, a much more comprehensive approach to data collection, use of technology, skills development and organisational resilience and sustainability, given the changing nature of court. JMcL felt there may be a need to breakdown some elements of court PID – is it all court work – or the most complex which is in primary scope. Do we need to describe what the principal challenges and difficulties are? Some initial data analysis would help frame this better. Resources, skills, experience, confidence, data and planning are all going to be relevant to identifying the scope of the programme. The need to get ahead of the changing landscape of court work – all aspects, was emphasised. Need to ensure that the support elements within the PID needs to be both to the Reporter and the wider team – which is a characteristic of the court challenge (e.g. concentric circles of support to the Reporter and the host team where there is extensive extraction). The emotional drain on Reporters was also noted and is likely to feature in the output/outcomes. Court Group will meet in mid - August to develop this further

NPF welcomed the early opportunity to comment on both PID’s at the outset. Noted the intention for these to be concluded at Change Board at end August and for work to commence. Action – PID’s will be developed to final draft for Change Board at end August. Comments from NPF welcomed to ensure that PID’s are as robust and clear as possible. 6. Standing items (a) Health, Well Being and Staff Survey group Staff survey results – will be presented to HWB and Survey Group – very high turnout (75%). Further reports to NPF in due course.

Mental Health training – ongoing

Health and well being surevy – planned for autumn 15, with slimmed down, amended version.

We will add Health and Safety Committee to standing items Action: NH/JA/JR – to add Health and safety as a standing item (b) Equalities Network Minute of last meeting noted:- Key areas of focus are:

Compliance with Equalities Act (Equalities Scheme and Equal Pay Statement)

Equalities rights and Children’s Rights assessment (c) LSM Job description (deferred from item 4 to allow SD to join meeting) Listening exercise is ongoing. A very in-depth exercise has been undertaken that help the organisation make an informed decision on way ahead (d) HR Sub Group SD/JR updated. Areas discussed at last HR Sub were:-

Maternity Policy

Pensions update

LSM Job description

Recruitment update

(e) Finance RMcK updated. Capital – small carry over from last year – also capital budget will be supplemented by sale of Gladstone Place

Revenue budget – overspend last year has limited any in year flexibility in 15/16 and the budget is already under pressure. Savings plans have been difficult to achieve even at this early stage. Spending Review – expectation is that SCRA will need to turn around a submission in September/October. Focus will be on sustainability and statutory nature of SCRA. (f) Risk reference Group Now established and working well. Expecation is that risk registers will become a feature at all levels in SCRA and in 2015 linked to Locality Plans. 7. Management Standards JR introduced. Genesis of this work has a number of strands. A concern to improve management arrangements and support across the organisation, a need to be more objective about measuring our performance and developing our management workforce. The work is based on the Management Standards Centre framework, but has been broken down further to core, secondary, and tertiary/specialist. Discussion was supportive and JR/NH will begin to develop a small group to advance this further. Action:- JR/NH 8. Date of next meeting 26 November 15

National Partnership Forum

held on Thursday 7th May 2015 Ochil House, Stirling

1

Present: Jill Richards (chair) Neil Hunter Tom Philliben Susan Deery Nicola Crawford Jim McClafferty Gillian Brown Apologies: Paul Harkness Ross Mackenzie Joe McKeown Adele McCormick Alistair Hogg

Action

1. Minute of Previous Meeting: 5th February 2015

Agreed: As an accurate record.

2. Matters Arising

Workload Survey Noted:

1. The latest phase of the joint workload survey has gone smoothly. 2. The results will be fed back into the Spending Review process,

via various internal structures and NPF.

OD Strategy Noted: 1. Work progressing on the delivery plan. 2. Unison’s comments have been submitted. The comments

generally support the direction and content of the strategy.

Overtime Noted: 1. Continued discussions with CHS in respect of the resources

around SCRA staff overtime payments in relation to panel training events.

2. Staff to discuss approval of overtime in advance with their line manager.

3. National Partnership Development Day Update Noted: Unison Steward or Staff Rep(s) are seen as members of LMT

within the Partnership Agreement.

All localities are now represented by a Unison Rep who will attend LMTs.



2

Action

To re-instate a Head Office Partnership Forum.

The Glasgow LMT have factored time for their Unison Steward by adjusting the caseload. This is seen as a positive way to plan for facility time and a model that could be adopted.

Time to consider a way of monitoring and assessing the impact of Unison related work.

Unison to discuss at their next branch meeting – unison duties –v- work balance; national –v- local facility time etc.

Agreed: 1. To map this year’s outputs against the existing plan and

adjust/plan priorities for next meeting. NH

2. To compile a series of joint priorities to be taken forward in conjunction with localities.

4. Draft Digital Strategy Noted: 1. The Strategy has no delivery plan as yet as it has been

constructed to set out a vision, aspirations and direction over the next 5 years. Delivery arrangements and priorities will flow from cross agency sign up and agreement of principles.

2. An indicative investment/business case for the length of the strategy has been submitted to the Scottish Government.

3. Ongoing discussions with the Scottish Court Services in relation to their experience with the Dundee pilot site.

4. Expectations for Yr1 & Yr2 are to progress:

SCRA digital services

CMS & Panel Pocket

Roll out to staff

5. The requirement for a common platform for all agencies to link in and share information.

6. The benefits to children & families are:

To allow opportunities to exploit digital technology to assist a child to give a statement to better inform the hearing.

To speed up the process of transmission of information and decision making.

To allow new possibilities to emerge on engagement and participation practice.

Potential to improve the security of children’s information. 7. To further develop the section `voice of the child’.

8. To map inputs against SHANARRI.



3

Action

Agreed: 1. To present a final draft to CHIP in June alongside CHS & SCRA

Boards. NH

2. Present a Business Case for 2016/2017 to Scottish Government in Autumn 2015.

NH

5. Health & Wellbeing & Staff Survey Group Update The note of the last meeting was tabled and Neil provided a brief

update.

Noted: Issues around the staff up-take for mental health training.

Discussions around mindfulness training.

General sense of more stability across the service.

SCRA have been awarded Bronze status for Healthy Working Lives. Now working towards the Silver Award.

The PR/CEO will issue a new `healthy working lives’ brief in Spring 2015.

Discussions underway in planning the 2015 staff survey.

Priorities for 2015/16:

Staff absence

Heat map data – evidence led approach

Adopting good practice by using a reasoned and measured approach.

Supervision and appraisal framework – LRMs not undertaking any appraisals or objective setting until locality plans are issued.

Review of locality plan – segments 1&2 should be captured.

To further promote the confidential services of our Employee Assistance Programme.

Agreed: 1. To clarify lines of communication in relation to objective setting.

SD

6. HR Sub Group Update

Susan Deery provided a brief summary: Noted: Review of the Recruitment & Selection Policy was ongoing.

VER – the equivalent of 5.81 FTE have accepted. The roles will be from HO/Locality/Other. Staff will be leaving between May – Dec 2015.



4

Action

Staff Recognition Scheme – there was no support for a staff recognition scheme. To be fedback to June Board meeting.

Discussions in relation to flexible, fixed public holidays.

In-depth discussions on pension changes.

The OD Strategy paper and Action Plan were discussed.

Standing item of Workforce Planning – recruitment of 6 Assistant Reporters will not progress during 15/16 budget. There are Assistant Reporter posts being recruited to within localities.

Business Case for Ayrshire & Glasgow to convert support posts to Assistant Reporter posts has been approved.

Appointment to the Trainee Reporter Scheme will take place every 2 years – the next intake will be April 2016. This will support the ability to provide permanent Reporter posts to Trainees who successfully complete the programme against a backdrop of low Reporter turnover.

A vacancy management procedure has been agreed by the Sub Group and will be rolled out.

7. Financial Update

An update was prepared by Ross Mackenzie:

The 14/15 position is being finalised before audit next month.

Some additional resource from Scottish Government in March (£250k) eased the overspend to the extent that there was no requirement to carry forward any deficit to be made up in 15/16, and allowed some fixed costs to be brought forward.

15/16 capital budget is £971k, being £500k grant in aid and £471k receipt anticipated from sale of Gladstone Place.

Major spends will be on Inverness, Stornoway, IT including CMS development and the Hearings System Digital Strategy.

Should more resource be available, as has happened in previous years, Perth upgrading and website upgrading are prioritised.

15/16 revenue budget is £21.3m, being £20.8m grant in aid plus £0.5m cost-recovery from tenants, secondments and shared services.

The budget was balanced by setting a general savings target of 2.8% of staff costs for all budget holders and further corporate savings targets that include: £185k on estate rationalisation, £160k on in-year VR/VER savings, £100k on contract savings including CMS hosting, £50k Benefits Realisation Programme.



5

Action

Budgets have been issued to budget holders and plans are already being developed by LMTs to ensure there is no overspend this year.

8. Risk Reference Group

Noted: The meeting was well attended and the minute was noted.

9. Any Other Business

LSM Job Description Review The issue was raised by Jim McClafferty.

Noted: 1. There is uncertaintiy around the current position in relation to the

LSM job description review. LRMs requested better communications to keep them in the loop, to help support the LSMs.

Susan Deery/Neil Hunter summarised:

Noted: 12 months ago the LSMs requested a review of their job

description.

The job description was evaluated by the Job Evaluation Committee who made comment that the HD felt like a new role rather than a revision of the current job. It was noted that the Job Evaluation Committee carried out their role very professionally in their analysis and raising the issue. EMT agreed that there was a requirement to review the position which felt had gone beyond a revision of the current role.

LSMs have been kept up to date at every phase of the process.

Another phase of the consultation will commence. This will consider the business need for the role as described in the revised JD and the key elements of the post. The need for financial balance was also an important requirement.

A need to reflect on the commitment to LSMs to review their job description and to accurately reflect their current role.

Agreed: 1. Unison to attend the next LSM Forum to offer advice & support. GB 2. To issue a communication to LSMs/LRMs updating on the current

situation and the next steps of the process. SD



6

Action

10. Date of Next Meeting: 5th August 2015

1

Reporter Decision Making Project

PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT

V0.1

2

Document History

Document Owner Lisa Bennett

Document Location This document is only valid on the day it was printed and the electronic version is located RDM PID

Document Status The current status for this document is DRAFT Revision History Date of next revision:

Version number

Revision date Previous revision date

Summary of changes

Changes marked

Approvals This document requires approvals to be signed off

and filed in project files

Name Signature Responsibility Date of issue

Version

Distribution This document has been distributed as follows

Name Responsibility Date of issue

Version

3

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 AIM ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT ................................................................................................................. 5 TO FORM A PROJECT TEAM THAT WILL SUCCESSFULLY DELIVER THE PROJECT WITHIN TIMESCALES

AND BUDGET ......................................................................................................................................... 5 THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN COMMISSIONED BY EMT IN CONSULTATION WITH CHANGE BOARD AND

OPERATIONAL GROUP. PROJECT GOVERNANCE WILL BE VIA A PROGRAMME MANAGER/PROGRAMME

BOARD THAT WILL OVERSEE THIS AND THE COURT PROJECT – CAN THIS BE A SUBSET OF CHANGE

BOARD? ................................................................................................................................................ 6

2. PROJECT DEFINITION .................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 NOT IN SCOPE ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.4 KEY DELIVERABLES ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.7 INTERFACES .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.8 EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES ............................................................................................................. 8 2.9 TOLERANCE .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.10 BENEFITS ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.11 COSTS ........................................................................................................................................... 9

3. APPROACH/PROCESS/EXECUTION AND PLAN ................................................................... 10

3.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 INITIAL PROJECT PLAN/MILESTONES ............................................................................................ 10

Initiation

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5 ................................................... 10

4. CONTINGENCY PLANS ................................................................................................................ 10

5. PROJECT ORGANISATION STRUCTURE ............................................................................... 11

5.1 SRO .............................................................................................................................................. 11 5.2 PROJECT MANAGER ...................................................................................................................... 11 5.3 PROJECT BOARD ........................................................................................................................... 11 5.4 PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................................................. 11 5.5 ASSURANCE PANEL ....................................................................................................................... 11 5.6 PROJECT FILING STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 12

6. COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................ 12

6.1 COMMUNICATION METHOD ........................................................................................................... 12 6.2 STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................ 12

7. REPORTING CYCLE ..................................................................................................................... 12

7.1 PROJECT INITIATION ..................................................................................................................... 12 7.2 REPORTING PERIODS..................................................................................................................... 13 7.3 DECISION POINTS .......................................................................................................................... 13 7.4 EXCEPTION REPORTING ................................................................................................................ 13 7.5 PROJECT ISSUES ............................................................................................................................ 13

4

7.6 END PROJECT NOTIFICATION ........................................................................................................ 13

8. QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES/KEY CRITERIA .............................. 15

PROMOTES AN IMPROVED SERVICE TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ........ 15

SUPPORTS ATTAINMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................... 15

GENERATES MORE TIME TO FOCUS ON CORE REPORTER FUNCTIONS ............. 15

BETTER UTILISATION OF ROLES TO… ........................................................................... 15

APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER MAP ............................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX C: INITIAL RAID LOG ................................................................................................. 18

Purpose The purpose of the PID is to define the project, to form the basis for its management and the assessment of overall success.

The Project Initiation Document has two primary uses:

To ensure that the project has a sound basis before asking the Project Board to commit to make any major commitment to the project

To act as a base document, against which the Project Board and Project Manager can assess progress, risks, issues, change and ongoing viability questions

5

1. Introduction

1.1 Aim

To deliver a set of recommendations to Change Board that, when implemented, will maximise Reporter’s time to efficiently carry out their core statutory function.

1.2 Background

The right decisions being made about the right children at the right time has been said and quoted many times over the years and is key to what this project is about. In order to deliver the best possible service, Reporters need the time, space and supporting processes that will best enable them to provide this.

Reporters become involved in the referral process at the point of the initial assessment or the ‘Assess task’ on CMS, and thereafter touch on all processes through to the referral’s end point at Decision/Hearing and related activity such as court, appeals and review hearings..

The introduction of CMS has created the opportunity to revisit task allocation, so that the staff who are best placed to undertake particular tasks, do so. Given this development, it is appropriate to carry out a review to re-assess this, taking account of the requirements of the technical processes but aligned to the evolving thinking around key roles in the delivery of, and assisting in, the core reporter function.

Alongside this and complimenting it, has been a drive within the organisation to improve on-going sustainability and resilience in the way in which the service is delivered. Two main projects have been identified – this one, that will look at the core function of the Reporter, and the Court Project.

Both will seek to unpack the processes and tasks involved in performing the statutory function to enable the most agile and highly performing service to staff, children and families and partners.

1.3 Objectives of Project

To form a project team that will successfully deliver the project within timescales and budget

A full mapping exercise of the areas within scope will be completed by the Project team in the initial meeting to enable planning of exploratory work.

To identify individuals/networks/groups (using current structures where possible) that will act as consultation for ideas/proposals that come out of the project prior to their inclusion in the recommendations.

The project team will conduct a radical exploration of all areas outlined in the plan in consultation with identified individuals/groups, to determine the most effective recommendations.

6

The project team will develop a set of guiding principles or key criteria against which all recommendations will be tested. (Example criteria: Appendix A) A comprehensive set of recommendations to facilitate the maximisation of the reporter’s capacity to carry out their core function more efficiently will be delivered to Change Board in … by the project manager

1.4 Authority for the Project

This project has been commissioned by EMT in consultation with change Board and Operational Group. Project governance will be via a programme manager/Programme Board that will oversee this and the Court project – can this be a subset of change board?

2. Project Definition

2.1 Scope

The project will undertake to review all interactions with the processes around the referral journey from it being picked up as an Assess Referral task, through to the decision being made on it and onwards to the end point of that referral e.g. at a hearing or decision not to go to hearing. It will review all other areas that the reporter currently deals with e.g. reviews.

It will look at the range of tasks and duties carried out by reporters and adjacent roles, the enabling processes, the environment in which these roles are conducted and technology that supports these.

2.2 Not in scope

Protocols with Partners

Court and appeals

Alterations to job descriptions

Structural (buildings) changes

Technological changes

However recommendations may suggest one or all of these being considered for further work.

2.3 Assumptions

Any recommendations that would result in a technological change would be supported by a full technical assessment by the IS team and thereafter (if agreed) modification to CMS..

That the Court project will link in with this project on overlaps or dependencies. This will be managed through the programme management framework whereby project managers will regularly meet and report progress.

7

2.4 Key Deliverables

The key deliverables for the project will be: Management Deliverables:

A Project Plan

Issue and Risk log

Stage plans

Progress reports

End project report

Lessons learned

A resource Plan

Consultation strategy Operational Deliverables:

Map of in-scope processes

A set of guiding principles/key criteria

Full evaluation of current processes/ways of working and exploration of ‘doing things differently’

Set of recommendations

2.5 Constraints

The constraints on this project are as follows:

Time - Timescales for this project are yet to be determined but we would anticipate that, due to the on-going competing demands on everyone that will be involved, there will always be a pressure here to be mindful of

Quality/Scope - Statutory nature of the Reporter role

- Existing terms and conditions, roles and impact on following recommendations

- Organisational resistance through embedded culture

Resources - Resources being available to support project without detrimental effect to locality performance

- Support resources being available to support project due to competing demands e.g. IT, Planning etc

Budget – yet to be scoped

2.6 Assumptions

The project is predicated on the following assumptions:

8

The required skills to undertake and support this project can be identified internally

Sufficient personnel and financial resources shall be made available to staff up and complete the project

Sufficient will and finance are in place to implement outcomes

Interlinked projects will seek to work together to produce the best outcomes for the whole system

2.7 Interfaces

The other projects and pieces of work that interface with this project are:

Court work project

HR /OD sub group of National Partnership forum

Digital strategy

NUG, CAB, (in relation to CMS process changes and functionality)

OD Strategy

2.8 External Dependencies

The project is externally dependant on the following:

The outcomes of the digital strategy

Legislative changes

Depending upon the approach taken and/or the recommendations, partner agencies e.g. Social Work may require to be involved in re work of processes/memorandum or understandings etc. (post project)

2.9 Tolerance

No tolerances have been set at present. We would seek the counsel of the Project Board.

2.10 Benefits

A full evaluation will be undertaken to provide the organisation with an assurance that the recommendations put forward will have been fully explored, consulted upon and challenged against strict and set criteria and will

9

seek to deliver (once implemented) a sustainable and resilient model for delivery of the reporter’s function that will provide the following benefits:

Reporters with more time to focus on the essential elements of their statutory role

Further opportunities to develop existing and further roles to support the core reporter role

Improved service quality for children and families through better, more timely decision making, and better customer experience at hearings

As a consequence of the above, better outcomes for children.

Improved morale of SCRA staff

Improved efficiency in deployment of staff effort.

2.11 Costs

The initial costs for this project are – yet to be costed

Area Cost

10

3. Approach/Process/Execution and Plan

3.1 Approach

Prince2 methodology will be used to manage the project. The project planning and aims will be undertaken collaboratively and agreed work and actions will be carried out by the team in consultation with others. There will be a lead appointed for each action/strand and a team leader will oversee the delivery of these.

3.2 Initial Project Plan/Milestones

Initiation Complete PID and seek authorisation to initiate project Role specifications complete for project team Stage 1 Formation of team Development of full Project Plan to include timescales and task allocation Stage 2 Development and delivery of map of project scope Development and delivery of Guiding Principles/Key Criteria Stage 3 Exploration and consultation Stage 4 Recommendations Stage 5 Project delivered and closed Stages 3 and 4 can run in parallel after a staggered start point.

Initiation

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

4. Contingency Plans

This will be considered and contained in the Project Plan

11

5. Project Organisation Structure

5.1 SRO

The Senior Responsible Owner for the project is Alistair Hogg (Tom Philliben Deputy SRO)

5.2 Project Manager

Lisa Bennett will act as Interim Project Manager

5.3 Project Board

The Project Board will consist of the following members: The Change Board (subset?)

5.4 Project Team

The Project Team consists of the following members:

1 x Sponsor EMT

1 x Project Manager

1 x Operational Project Team Leader

2 x LRMs

2 x LSMs

2 x Reporters/Senior Practitioners

1 x Practice Reporter

1 x Unison (or covered in one of the other roles?)

IT link

Planning link

HR link

5.5 Assurance panel

The following organisations will provide consultation and assurance to the project:

Operational Group

PIN/ PQN

12

NUG

Governance will be through Project meetings and Project/Programme Board and ultimately Change Board/EMT

5.6 Project Filing Structure

The electronic project files will be kept on a dedicated and secure project area within the G drive and a workspace on connect with be set up for the project team

6. Communication and Stakeholders

6.1 Communication method

The key communications channels are:

A communication strategy will be produced and will provide more detail about project comms to include but not limited to the following:

A page on connect will be set up with regular updates and these will be highlighted as news items

PIN/PQN/NUG/Ops will be used as consultative bodies and will follow feedback mechanism already in place

Updates from the team will be communicated via the team briefs

6.2 Stakeholders

The stakeholder map at Appendix B sets out the following:

a. The identity of the stakeholder;

b. The nature of the stakeholder’s interest in the project;

c. The stakeholder’s information requirements;

d. The channels through which these requirements will be met;

e. The timing of such communications.

7. Reporting Cycle

7.1 Project Initiation

The project will formally start when the SRO and XXXXX have approved this project document.

13

7.2 Reporting Periods

Project team meetings will be held [agreed period] for the team to report progress, discuss findings/issues, plan next steps

The Project manager will provide the Project Board with Project updates, end stage plans and any assurance as required.

All issues/risks will be raised through this process and can be escalated at any time outwith set meetings.

7.3 Decision Points

The following sets out the points when key decisions must be taken:

Timescales for decisions are to be scoped following agreement of project timescales.

Through the initiation stage decisions will be taken in regard to the team, timescales and scope. Upon agreement, Stage 1 can commence.

There may be certain key decisions to be made during Stage 3 and these will be done in consultation with aforementioned bodies.

Key decisions will be made during Stage 4 in the completion of the recommendations to the Board.

All decisions will be recorded in the RAID log Appendix C

7.4 Exception Reporting

Exception reporting will be carried out by the Project Manager as required and will be escalated through standard project/programme manager routes.

7.5 Project Issues

Project issues and risks may be raised by anyone with an interest in the project at any time.

The Project Manager will manage the issue log.

The initial RAID log is attached at Appendix C

7.6 End Project Notification

The project will be formally closed by the SRO when recommendations have been delivered and noted by Board

14

8. Quality

The Guiding principles/Key criteria that will be developed in Stage 2 will provide the Project with a set of quality indicators that it will endeavour to meet in order to assess it’s success.

15

Appendix A - EXAMPLE of Guiding Principles/Key Criteria

Promotes an improved service to children and young people

Supports attainment of performance standards

Generates more time to focus on core Reporter functions

Better utilisation of roles to…

Increased…

Stronger…

Opportunities to….

Improve quality

Increase wellbeing of Reporters

16

Appendix B: Stakeholder Map

Key to Relationship Column:

A: Role is Affected/Changed by Programme, or Programme contributes to success of external organisation or project.

B1: Directly Benefits from the Programme

B2: Indirectly Benefits from the Programme

C1: Directly Contributes to the Programme

C2: Indirectly Contributes to the Programme

Stakeholder Interest Relationship Notes Info Requirements Channel Timing

Reporter Yes A, B1, C1

Assistant reporter

Yes A, B2, C2

Sr Practitioner Yes A, B2, C2

LRM Yes B1, C1

LSM Yes C1

Support admin Yes A, B2, C2

Unison Yes C1

CHS Yes C2

17

Stakeholder Interest Relationship Notes Info Requirements Channel Timing

Children referred/”customers”

Yes B2

18

Appendix C: Initial RAID Log

Ref Raised date Description Owner Probability Impact Score Timescale Mitigation plan Status

1

2

3

Risks

Ref Start date Description Owner Status Due date Progress

1

2

3

4

Actions

Ref Raised date Description Owner Impact Recovery plan Update Status

1

2

3

Issues

Ref Date Description Agreed by

1

2

3

Decisions

1

SCRA Court Programme

DRAFT PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT

V0.1

2

Table of Contents

PID Purpose

Project Aim/Purpose

1. Introduction

1.1 Background


Authority for the Project



2.2 Constraints

2.3 Assumptions

2.4 Exclusions

2.5 Interfaces

2.6 Dependencies

2.7 Benefits

2.8 Costs

3. Approach


4.1 SRO

4.2 Project Manager

4.3 Project Team

5. Communication

6. Reporting Cycle

6.1 Project Initiation

6.2Reporting Periods

6.3 Decision Points


6.5 Project Issues


Appendix A Initial Issue Log

Appendix B Initial Risk Log

3

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PID: This Project Initiation Document has two primary uses:

• To provide a rationale and structure for the project to commence

• To act as a base document, against which the Change Board and Project Manager can assess progress, risks, issues, change and ongoing viability questions

PROJECT AIM/PURPOSE

To develop a court programme which will maximise the abilities of people and IT resources within SCRA to ensure efficient and effective preparation for and conduct of court proceedings.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The background of this project is :

SCRA's current court strategy was issued in 2012. In light of significant organisational change since then including restructuring and the impact of streamlining staff resources with loss of experienced staff it is necessary to review how we prepare for and conduct proof and appeal proceedings to ensure that one of the core statutory functions of the Principal Reporter, as delegated, is being performed to the highest possible standard for the benefit of children and young people.

In the GIRFEC climate of reducing numbers of referrals to the reporter and the legal climate of increased litigation since the coming into force of the 2011 Act, court work will form a greater proportion of SCRA's workload and SCRA’s court conduct and outcomes will potentially be more closely scrutinised than before.

The effect of court work on Localities can be significant due to the unpredictable nature of court cases. High volume of court work or even a single complex case in a locality can impact detrimentally on the pressure on the locality workforce and the case-workers more particularly, on the outcome for the court case child(ren) and on progression of decision making for all other referred children.

In light of Locality maturation, the bedding-in of CMS and our developed understanding of the 2011 Act over the last 2 years, 2015 is an opportune stage to reassess and plan how SCRA can best service court work. The

4

current SCRA court strategy was assessed in September 2014 (paper by Press and Communications Manager, Maryanne McIntyre) as not being fully implemented within Localities. The report provided to the Operations Group May 2015, by Practice Manager, Gill Short, concluded that the court Strategy returns were under-reported and therefor robust conclusions could not be drawn from those that were provided. At the 'Shaping Our Sustainable Future' EMT event in January 2015, 'court' was identified as one of four clusters for development to "deliver improved quality and performance resulting in the improved well-being of our workforce". Further discussion of the clusters took place at the Managers' Event on 12/3/15 where there was appetite for a strategic approach to improving how we service court work.

This project will focus on how we can provide that service as efficiently and effectively as possible and sustain continuous improvement.


The objectives of the project are as follows :

As soon as possible but by no later than 31/9/16 :

• To assess and develop SCRA's court strategy and ensure compliance to maximise organisational effectiveness

• To develop methods to accurately capture court data to assist trend prediction and planning

• To create a rolling database of court skills and experience within our workforce and use it to deploy resources intelligently to cover/support court work and spread skills/experience

• To assess which SCRA posts are best value to undertake each aspect of court work

• To review SCRA’s cover of higher court work

• To make SCRA as self-sufficient as possible at servicing court work ‘in-house’ and minimise reliance and expenditure on outsourcing

• To assess and develop use of IT in supporting efficient court preparation and presentation

1.3 Authority for the Project

This project has been authorised by :

SCRA's Change Board and EMT

5



The key deliverables for the project will be:

a court programme creating :

An effective, efficient court-skilled workforce

A national court skills/experiences map for all relevant posts

The most effective use of IT for court work

A way of measuring time spent on court work

A reviewed/revised Court Strategy

2.2 Constraints

The constraints on this project are as follows:

• Constraint 1; Political - de-prioritisation of this project might be forced upon SCRA due to unforeseen external changes we are required to respond to. The potential benefits of fulfilling this project must be considered against the disadvantages of doing nothing.

• Constraint 2; Economical - we have a reducing organisational budget. Minimisation of delay in cases and stress on our reporters and maximisation of court preparation and presentation skills will be cost effective

• Constraint 3; Social - Our workforce has been reduced. We need to be intelligent/'best value' in our approach to the structure of our workforce and who does what in relation to court work

• Constraint 4; Technological - we do not currently maximise the potential use of IT although there might be limitations on how far IT can be developed and how IT can be used in the court setting. We need to assess if and how IT can assist us to do what we need to do efficiently

• Constraint 5; Legal - We are statutorily required to administer and present court cases. We have no leeway in the statutory responsibilities we are required to meet. We need to maximise the standard to which we meet our statutory duties and question whether we should do anything that we are not statutorily bound to do

• Constraint 6; Environmental - if approved, the project team will have to minimise carbon footprint and consider the environmental impact of implementing plans

6

2.3 Assumptions

The project is predicated on the assumption that while it is not dependent upon the "Reporter Decision-Making" programme, success in both Decision-Making and Court programmes will promote the most efficient and effective discharge of the Principal Reporter's core operational functions by SCRA.

2.4 Exclusions

This programme is deliberately broad in its terms as it involves an extensive strategic review of all areas related to the core court functions of the Principal Reporter and therefore nothing relating to court work is excluded at this stage.

2.5 Interfaces

The other projects and pieces of work that interface with this project are:

Internal :

1) SCRA's Sustainable Service Delivery Programme and, in particular the "Reporter Decision-Making" programme

2) several projects within SCRA's Benefits Realisation Programme ie Workforce Planning, the Digital Strategy, the Health and Wellbeing Group, SMART Working Project, Customer Focus Project

3) partnership working with Unison

External : Scottish Courts Service, the Scottish Government, SCRA’s contracted solicitors' firms, Sheriffs and Sheriffs Principal

2.6 Dependencies

The project is externally dependent on the following people:

The Scottish Government, the Scottish Courts Service, SCRA’s contracted solicitors' firms, Sheriffs and Sheriffs Principal

The project is internally dependent on the following people:

• The project team and their managers ensuring delivery of the project objectives

• The IS Team being able to develop methods of measuring court work and court outcomes and the Data Team being able to advise on suitable methods of capturing that data

7

• The IS team being able to develop the use of IT to save time, labour, paper, postage etc in preparing and conducting court cases

• The SCRA Practice Team and Accreditation Manager continuing to develop and deliver training on assessment of evidence, decision making and court skills

• Locality managers and Unison supporting the evolution of SCRA posts to cover/support court work should that be necessary

• Locality managers ensuring :

• training time and personal development are provided for all staff undertaking court work

• prompt, complete and accurate recording of data relative to court work and LMT strategic use of the resulting data presented by the data team

• continuously up-to-date, complete and accurate recording of Reporters' skills/experiences and managerial use of this to frame and support Reporters' PDPs

• staff make use of IT developments relative to court work

• sustained and full compliance with the revised Court Strategy

• A corporate approach to sharing resources

• The Head of Practice and Policy reviewing SCRA's Court Strategy

2.7 Benefits

The project will provide the following benefits:

benefit 1; sustained minimisation of preventable delay - otherwise court cases can 'grow arms and legs', creating more delay for the court case child(ren), additional work and time for SCRA and resulting adverse impact on decision making for other referred children

benefit 2; sustained minimisation of anxiety - because lack of experience/confidence/training/support for individual court reporters can lead to personal stress which in turn can have potentially adverse impacts on the court case child(ren)

benefit 3; sustained minimisation of expense - time, people, budgetary efficiencies

benefit 4; sustained maximisation of quality and consistency of performance of court functions

benefit 5; sustained maximisation of use of resource-saving IT

benefit 6; sustained maximisation of beneficial outcomes for our court child(ren)

benefit 7; sustained maximisation of confidence in servicing court functions and organisational reputation

8

2.8 Costs The initial costs for this project are within budget

3. Approach The Project Team will determine the approach necessary to achieve the project objectives including appropriate timescales


4.1 SRO

The Senior Responsible Owner for the project is Malcolm Schaffer, Head of Practice and Policy for SCRA

4.2 Project Manager

The Project Manager for the project is Pauline Proudfoot, Operational Development Manager for SCRA

4.3 Project Team

The Project Team consists of the following members:

Head of Practice and Policy

Unison

Policy and Public Affairs Manager

Practice Team rep

2 snr pracs

2 reporters

2 LRMs

HR rep

Project Manager

By invitation as necessary ;

IS team rep

Data team rep

9

5. Communication The key communications channels are:

the Project Team, the Change Board, Connect

6. Reporting Cycle

6.1 Project Initiation The project will formally start when the SRO and SCRA's Change Board have approved this project document.

6.2 Reporting Periods

The Team will meet the Project Manager at least every two months

The Project Manager will meet the SRO at least monthly

The SRO and Board will report to the Change Board monthly

6.3 Decision Points The Project Team will set out the points when key decisions must be taken


Exception reporting will be carried out by the Project Manager to the Change Board as required.

6.5 Project Issues

Project issues may be raised by anyone with an interest in the project at any time.

The Project Manager will manage the issue log.

The initial Issue log is attached at Appendix A

The Initial Risk Log is attached at Appendix B


The project will be formally closed by the Change Board when all objectives are achieved

10

Appendix A: Initial Issue Log

No Name Description Owner Action & Progress Action Date Status

11

Appendix B: Initial Risk Log

No Risk

Description

Example Scenario

Impact

Likelihood

Owner Managemen

t Strategy

Resource Requirem

ents

RAG Status

(Red Amber, Green)