Board minutes – July 2024

Sharon Gilburd (SG) – Chair

John-Mark Frost (JMF)

Andrea Gale (AG) 

Harriet Green (HG) – CEO

Myra Hunt (MH) – CEO

Glyn Jones (GJ) – WG 

Neil Prior (NP)

Ben Summers (BS)

Apologies:

Samina Ali 

Phillipa Knowles 

Secretariat: 

Jon Morris (JM)

The meeting opened at 13:00.

1.1 Board members noted the apologies. The Chair noted a quorum had been achieved.

1.2 Board members noted the Conflict of Interest Register and were noted that AG and BS would need to update their returns in light of new external roles. 

ACTION: AG and BS to submit new Declarations of Interest. 

1.3 The Board approved the note of the meeting held on 16 May 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. GJ noted action BRD24-016 had been closed and asked for an update on this matter. The Chair emphasised the importance of updating members on progress and closure of actions to the original requestor. NP confirmed BRD24-008 could be closed. 

ACTION: JM to update GJ on actions taken to close BRD24-016. 

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

1.6 The Chair raised that CDPS would undergo a Tailored Review, led by our WG Partnership Team. This will likely occur this calendar year. The Terms of Reference will be agreed ahead of any review start, with Board member involvement being agreed at this time. 

2.1 HG presented the July 2024 CEO update to the meeting, noting the focus on the company’s objectives this quarter and appropriate use of limited resources. This view is particularly important against concerns around external service owners having conflicting priorities which hinders movement through project stages from Discovery to live.

2.2 The CEOs are particularly pleased with current CDPS work with AI and helping other organisations embed in-house digital teams. They noted concerns around sustainability of projects, and importance of forward planning and commitment to reduce risks. The CEOs responded to comments made before meeting in the paper and invited comments and questions from the Board.

2.3 Board members were pleased with the idea of proposing minimum viable teams (MVTs) in the context of budget cuts for stakeholders. They discussed the relevance across the nation and the opportunities for significant savings to be made from making appropriate cuts, reshaping and resizing effectively and efficiently. The board felt this was an excellent way to support organisations in recognising that there is not a “one size fits all” team makeup, and will assist organisations work towards the Digital Strategy for Wales based on the needs of the individual body.

2.4 Board members have received positive feedback following CDPS engagements, particularly the Hackathon and Communities of Practice, and discussed the encouraging signs of people coming together. AG noted positive feedback particularly within Housing Associations, and suggested capitalising on recent successes by increasing engagement with the sector on the Planning portfolio.

ACTION: Planning project to increase engagement with Housing Associations in recognition that this is a cross-sectoral issue.

2.5 Members noted a concern that CDPS had not yet met the new Cab Sec, despite him being in post for nearly four months. GJ gave context that it was important to remember the number of ministerial meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy is not a KPI, and that CDPS needs support from the whole cabinet. He expanded with the example that the Statutory Licensing Registration Scheme was moving quickly due to Ministerial support mandating engagement between CDPS and stakeholders. The CEO noted an opportunity for CDPS to review legislative programme to inform options for Ministerial portfolios.

ACTION: CEO to arrange review of legislative portfolio for cross-cutting areas where CDPS can have an impact. 

2.6 Board members were pleased with the progress of projects and asked for future CEO reports to include the name of the CDPS colleague leading each work area to help NEDs engage with them in a more informed way. 

ACTION: Future CEO reports to name project leads for each work area.

2.7 The Board raised a concern on employee attrition rates. In the Board’s opinion, there is a potential risk that young workforce all recruited at similar time may explore external opportunities within a similar timeframe. The CEOs confirmed they were aware of this, and it is to be addressed by succession planning. The CEOs feel that CDPS should aspire to be great place to work and great place to move on from. The Board agreed there is an opportunity to create managed churn by a series of secondments in and out of CDPS. This would lead into the creation of a “national story” of service improvement in Wales with CDPS at the heart.

2.8 Members wanted to explore the next steps for technology and standards work area. The CEO explained that CDPS was pursuing multiple models to help organisations assess their current positions against the Digital Standards for Wales. CDPS should be able to assist three organisations per year but looking to learn, improve, and grow; CDPS intends to accelerate and improving with learning from each organisation’s assessment. The CEO further noted that we need to explore and understand the blockers from unwilling organisations for service assessments.

2.9 Commercially sensitive content removed 

2.10 Board members felt there were opportunities on cross-nation collaboration with Labour running England and Wales, especially with UK Labour’s commitment to technology, productivity, and efficiency driving savings in public services. 

2.11 MH introduced the new style Management Information Pack (MIP), developed in Notion. She noted that much of the MIP had already been covered in the previous conversation, and made the following suggestions to improve the pack before opening to the wider Board for discussion. 

• Amend pack to reduce length and need to focus on outputs, with outcomes in the CEO report.  
• “SLT comments” changed to “SLT actions” to move from amber/red to green.  
• RAG rating too subjective, define parameters to judge. 

2.12 The Board agreed with MH’s recommendations for the next iteration of the MIP, but also questioned why we were using Notion for the pack as this was another platform needed. After discussion, the Board decided the MIP needed to be much more high level, giving a headline summary for each strategic objective. Board members also agreed that going forwards areas in the MIP should be discussed by exception. 

ACTION: MIP to be amended based on Board’s comments ahead of next Board meeting. 

2.13 Board members agreed there was an opportunity to revisit CDPS’s objectives and outcomes during the upcoming Tailored Review, and conduct a survey of the company’s maturity. 

ACTION: Revisitation of CDPS’s objectives and outcomes and assessment of CDPS’s maturity to be included in Terms of Reference for Tailored Review. 

2.14 The members discussed the opportunity to review the top number, possibly 40, services in Wales to assess where CDPS can have an impact. The CEO noted that it was important not to re-run the Landscape Review as the scope for that piece was far too wide and resource intensive. This would give us the ability or assess whether CDPS has influenced a cultural change in organisations we have helped.

2.15 BS questioned the current position of the Design System in Wales piece, and what are the planned next steps. The CEO explained this was a piece of particular importance, and that the project is on the road map for this year. CDPS is currently examining the next appropriate steps, and that it is critical to get this right by examining our learning to date.

3.1 HG introduced the draft Risk Appetite Statement and opened to the Board for comment. The Board were generally happy with the current Risk Appetite Statement as a first version, and suggested updates to be incorporated as the organisation’s approach to matures.

3.2 Board members suggested the following updates be incorporated before the Statement was presented to ARC for approval at the end of July 2024. 

• Amend Amber risks to light-touch review monthly. 
• Amend Green risks to review quarterly.

ACTION JM to update Risk Appetite Statement based on feedback and present to ARC for approval on 24 July. 

3.3 The Board felt there was value in differentiating appetite based on risk type in future versions of the Risk Appetite Statement, noting that our Reputational or Data Security risk appetite may be lower than other types, e.g., Environmental risk. As we move towards this model, it would give CDPS an opportunity to perform risk benefit analyses and approach Board for decisions on taking a risk which is higher than the appetite rather than blanket avoidance.

ACTION GJ to share Government Functional Standard for risk categories with JM for consideration in future Risk Appetite Statement. 

3.4 The Board were content that, subject to immediate changes, the Risk Appetite Statement may be brought to ARC for approval on 24 July. 

3.5 HG presented the draft Strategic Risks Control Framework and invited comment from Board members.

3.6 Generally, Board members were pleased with the version presented and felt that there were no areas missing which they would expect to see. They discussed the below recommendations to develop the Framework. 

Strategic Risk 1: Financial Pressures 

Due to the fact that we now have a high proportion of perm staff, it is important to consider the impact of even a small change in annual budget, and that this may lead to redundancies. 

Should CDPS consider external workstreams and other sources of funding to mitigate the risk of future grant reductions? Would this approach move us more to acting like a consultancy and diminish our ability to change the ways in which people work? 

Strategic Risk 2: Cyber Assurance 

The key controls and forms of assurance are too technical in nature and should focus more on the risk of a successful cyber-attack and not being detected. CDPS needs to consider the risk of long-term persistent undetected compromise. 

Additionally, we need to ensure that the systems CDPS use are able to work together, and that our systems are not causing conflict with each other. 

Strategic Risk 3: CDPS does not build models of partnership to supply required tech and data skills 

The description/title needs revisiting, leaning more into the risk of not having the required skills to achieve 

Strategic Risk 4: Portfolio Delivery 

No additional comments 

Strategic Risk 5: Reputation/Impact 

The inherent score seems too low considering the nature of the risk is that we do not have sufficient impact, rather than being completely ignored. In this context, the Board felt that an inherent likelihood should be a four and impact is three. There should also be a control around service standards and assessments. 

The Board felt the most important change would be to include a form of assurance whereby we consider external stakeholders’ experiences, that be should be talking to our users about impact, not ourselves.

3.7 The Board agreed that for all strategic Risks there should be a definition of impact and that SLT members should be added as owners for each of the control actions.

ACTION SLT to update the Strategic Risks Control Framework based on feedback. 

4.1 MH Introduced the paper as read and invited Board members to comment. 

4.2 The Board were broadly supportive of the proposed approach, and wanted to examine how it would work financially? Have we considered why we wouldn’t develop skills in-house? The CEOs are considering different options to source skills routed in the practicality of what we would deliver. They want to be confident that this approach would not distort the market, but instead would boost digital skills in Wales in general, noting that this is an opportunity to create “next steps” for digital staff in Wales.

4.3 Board members discussed the possibility of kick-starting SMEs into working more successfully, and encouraging freelancers to come together to work more collectively. The proposed course addresses skills in CDPS and will aid skills spinning out from Wales to impact wider sectors. The question is how to use levers to influence and meet CDPS’s wider goals.

4.4 Members suggested a hybrid approach may be appropriate, with in-house staff demonstrating best practice for Wales, though this would mean an additional commitment of at least two in-house tech specialists. They also emphasised the importance of building and maintaining relationships with higher education to maintain a pipeline of skilled people. The non-executive directors recommended trialling this approach with organisations with whom we have not yet worked, which would give us different opinions to those we have already encountered, and that any trial must be bilingual at the heart. HM confirmed that this was an opportunity to think creatively about what partnership looks like in a relatively small marketplace with strong values and limited resources.

4.5 The Board recognised that partnership working can bring difficulties but is very valuable. NP suggested including consultancy expertise into the partnership mix to help deliver those services better as a rollout from this. The Board reflected on the possibilities for secondments previously discussed in the CEO update, and the value that context may have in this context. BS offered support to the CEOs given his experience in the private sector.

ACTION CEOs to follow up with BS on the proposed model and opportunities. 

4.6 The Board sought WG’s view on joint ventures from GJ, who confirmed that they were broadly supportive so long as they bring benefits to Welsh business and consider the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act and working bilingually.  

5.1 JM Introduced the paper and proposed dates for discussion and opened to the Board for wider discussion.

5.2 The Board noted that the dates for ARC meetings were unchanged and accepted as proposed. 

5.3 Members appreciated that PK and JM had worked to fit meetings into the existing structure but felt that January was not a favoured time for face-to-face meetings. They also felt that they would like to move the proposed September in-person session to October, so the two felt very close.

ACTION: PK to arrange Board away day for a date in October for a Strategic Workshop and cancel January meeting.

5.4 Board were keen to align their meetings with hose of ARC, and felt it appropriate for Board meetings to take place roughly three weeks after ARC. They also requested that the diary markers be extended to the end of 2025 as a placeholder and that the Board are given an opportunity to meet informally ahead of the upcoming Tailored Review.

ACTION: JM to schedule Quarterly Board and ARC meetings to the end of 2025.

ACTION: Once timings are agreed, JM to schedule informal Board meeting ahead of Tailored Review. 

6.1 GJ introduced the Board succession planning paper and invited comments and questions. SG noted it was positive to show that as an organisation CDPS can change and adapt, reflecting the core message of CDPS. Board members requested a draft timeline for any changes to their makeup.

ACTION GJ and Partnership Team to provide a written timetable outlining Board recruitment. 

6.2 Board members were keen to explore options to help increase experience of new and potential Non-executive Directors through programmes such as Step to Non Exec, previously run by Chwarae Teg.

6.3 The Board discussed the ongoing issues with onboarding the Finance Advisor for ARC after a suitable candidate had been found and agreed. The Board were keen to explore alternative avenues of appointing a Finance Advisor by exception as an Interim Non-Exec Director or drawing on the WG Talent Bank for a suitable candidate.

ACTION GJ and Partnership Team to explore possibilities of appointment of Finance Advisor for ARC.

6.4 The CEO highlighted an opportunity to examine the skills of the current Board to explore any gaps, for which the Non-executive Directors were supportive. The CEO expressed her keenness for a Director with a Health background to assist CDPS to understand the health landscape. The Board also identified several other skills which would be valuable in their makeup; these were people with backgrounds in Data, Local Government, and Finance. 

6.5 The Board discussed that there is an opportunity to have some of the skills/areas highlighted represented in the Advisory Panel. The CEO agreed and suggested this process can run alongside an Advisory Panel refresh which would help the two bodies work more collaboratively. 

7.1 The Chair noted this was NP’s final Board meeting following three years of service with CDPS and thanked him for his efforts. NP thanked the Chair and the wider Board for the opportunity and reflected on the positive learning experience this position has given him.

7.2 Review of Board meeting – Members were happy with the variety of topics covered and pleased with the constructive challenge discussed. 

The meeting closed at 16:35.