EPA Presentation: Designing a New Early-Intervention Service Pathway

Slide 1 Title Slide › Presentation title, your name and context

This is the cover slide the assessor sees first.

Designing a New Early-Intervention Service Pathway to Prevent Escalation of Need

David Agyei | Senior Business Analyst, PMO | Shropshire Council | CMI Level 5 EPA | June 2026

Opening line (say this as the slide appears): "The title is intentional. This is not a project about building a form. It is a project about redesigning a service pathway that is not working, in a council that cannot afford for it to keep not working."

Slide 2 Managing Self: Prioritisation and Time Management › Four concurrent workstreams; how prioritisation was managed

KSBs covered: S1.3 (self-management), K1.4 (prioritisation), B3.1 (takes responsibility)

Four Concurrent Workstreams

#	Workstream	Status
1	SWANN SPoR Phase 2	Primary. EPA project. Protected by Steve H.
2	Children's EHM Mapping	Deprioritised with Charlie's agreement. EPA takes precedence.
3	EPA Submission	Runs in parallel. The governance work IS the project.
4	IMPACT Board	Observation only. No delivery commitment.

How I Managed the Prioritisation

Weekly sprint goals. Each week had defined deliverables, preventing drift into reactive activity.
Named it formally. Capacity risk flagged to Steve H and Charlie (Children's) in writing, not absorbed silently.
EPA as structure. The governance documents the EPA requires ARE the project governance. No duplication.
Pre-planned absence. Governance package sent Thursday evening before Friday off. Lisa had the weekend to review.

Slide 3 Decision Making: Evaluation Techniques › Three significant decisions and the evaluation method used

KSBs covered: K3.1 (decision making), S1.5 (options appraisal), B3.4 (judgement)

Decision 1: Concurrent vs Sequential

Should Phase 1 be fixed first, or run Phase 1 tidy-up as a workstream within Phase 2?

Option	What it meant	Decision
Sequential	Fix Phase 1 first, then start Phase 2
Concurrent	Address Phase 1 issues as a tracked workstream within Phase 2	Chosen. Phase 2 capabilities are the solutions to Phase 1 problems. Sequentially fixing Phase 1 without Phase 2 would not work.

Decision 2: Sprint vs Waterfall

Option	Why
Sprint (chosen)	Matched the 5-week EPA window. First governance output (RAID log) in week 1. Requirements workshop in week 3, immediately actionable.
Waterfall	Would delay requirements workshop by 2+ weeks. Full plan impossible with incomplete data. Risk: planning consuming all available time.

Decision 3: Dynamics Portal vs Standalone Form

Option	Why
Dynamics portal (chosen)	Integrated, enables end-to-end tracking, makes the financial case measurable. The whole cost-avoidance model depends on tracking referral outcomes.
Standalone form	Faster to build, but creates a data silo. Cannot evidence cost avoidance if data does not flow into CRM.

Slide 4 Progress to Date and Implementation Timeline › What was completed before submission; what comes next

KSBs covered: K1.5 (project planning), S2.1 (delivering objectives), K10.1 (governance)

Implemented to Date (as of 5 June submission)

Item	Date
Done RAID log built and active	28 May 2026
Done ToR v1.0 circulated for sign-off	28 May 2026
Done Success outcome statement sent to commissioner	28 May 2026
Done Cost-avoidance analysis sent to commissioner	28 May 2026
Done Requirements workshop held (2 June)	2 June 2026
Done POAP v0.3 adopted as live governance doc	27 May 2026
Done Phase 2 weekly meeting series established	27 May 2026

Next Steps (June to September 2026)

Item	Date	Status
Electronic referral form build	w/c 8 June	Planned
Provider access + dashboard scoped	13 June	Planned
ToR signed off	4 June	Planned
Financial figures confirmed (Lisa)	9 June	Planned
Communications plan drafted	13 June	Planned
Referral form live	By Sept 2026	Target
Dashboard development underway	By Sept 2026	Target

Post-submission update (15 June): Second requirements workshop held 10 June. Financial figures meeting with Lisa scheduled 23 June. Referral form build status: confirm with Kate Hobbs on 17 June.

Slide 5 Three Recommendations › The three things that must happen for Phase 2 to succeed

KSBs covered: S6.3 (recommendations), K3.1 (evidence-based decisions), B3.4 (takes responsibility for outcomes)

Recommendation 1: Confirm a named strategic owner The governance gap above commissioning level is the highest unresolved risk. No escalation route exists for decisions above Lisa Middleton's authority. This must be resolved before Phase 2 build commences. Documented as RAID risk R_003, owned by Steve Humphrey. Meeting to confirm 23 June.

Recommendation 2: Electronic referral form first, unconditionally Everything depends on referral volume growing. Referral volume cannot grow while the telephone-only pathway remains the only option. No other Phase 2 workstream should compete for CRM team time until this is live.

Recommendation 3: Build the measurement framework in parallel The dashboard and data capture must be scoped now, alongside the referral form. The council cannot defend this investment at contract renewal without evidence of demand deflection. Waiting until after the form is built repeats the Phase 1 mistake.

The logic thread: Without a strategic owner, no one can make decisions above commissioning level. Without the form, there is no referral volume. Without the measurement framework, there is no evidence. The three recommendations are sequentially dependent.

Slide 6 Operational Context and Problem Definition › Why Shropshire; why SWANN; why now

KSBs covered: K2.1 (organisational context), S1.1 (situational analysis), K9.1 (external environment)

The Context

Shropshire Council declared a financial emergency in September 2025.
121 million pounds in exceptional government financial support borrowed.
Under MHCLG scrutiny, improvement board and LGA peer review.
Every commissioned service must demonstrate demand deflection.
Future Council Principles include early intervention and prevention.

The Problem: Phase 1 Is Not Working

Problem	Evidence
Low professional referrer uptake	Telephone-only pathway incompatible with practitioner workflows. Near-zero referrals from British Red Cross and Community Resource.
Broken referral feedback loop	31 outstanding referrals as of 27 May (29 with ICE Creates). Clients waiting up to one month without contact.
Absent data infrastructure	No dashboard, no standardised data sharing, no evidence of demand deflection. Cannot justify contract renewal.

Update as of 18 June: Referral backlog reduced from 31 to 13 by 2 June (encryption fix applied). By 10 June, confirmed those 13 were with Shropshire Mental Health, not dependent on Customer Services. Confirm final count at start of assessment.

Slide 7 Project Scope and Objectives › Six Phase 2 development priorities

KSBs covered: K1.1 (project scope), S1.2 (scope management), K10.2 (governance design)

Priority	Workstream	Description
A	Electronic Referral Form	Digital form on Dynamics 365 portal. Professional and self-referral versions. Priority One.
B	Provider Access	Replace email updates with direct CRM interface. Referral tracking enabled.
C	Dashboard	Power BI solution for contract and quality monitoring (Lesley Richards as contact).
D	Self-Referral Launch	Move from soft launch to public access. Communications plan required.
E	Data Capture	Signposting recording and next of kin field in CRM.
F	Liquid Logic Assessment	Assessment note for senior decision only. Not delivery.

Explicit Out of Scope

Operational delivery of Phase 1 referrals (Customer Services and providers)
Provider contract management and formal performance management proceedings
Implementation and mobilisation of commissioned services
Liquid Logic integration delivery (subject to separate senior decision)

Slide 8 Project Management: Tools and Techniques › Sprint framework, POAP, RAID log, RACI; sprint vs waterfall rationale

KSBs covered: K1.5 (project management tools), S2.2 (project delivery), S2.3 (risk management)

Tools Used and Why

Tool	Rationale
Sprint Framework	Adopted on Steve H's advice. Enabled governance and delivery in parallel within a 5-week window. More efficient than waterfall given sole-resource constraint.
POAP (Plan on a Page)	Live governance document shared with the team. Replaced informal email chains with a single source of truth. Grew from 1 to 5 pages as scope became clear. Lisa Middleton: "This hasn't always been supported by fully established governance arrangements, so what you've set out here feels like an important step in strengthening this."
RAID Log	PMO mandatory from 26 May. Built from scratch. 8 risks, 2 issues, 6 assumptions, 15 actions, 4 dependencies, 8 decisions tracked.
RACI Matrix	Clarified accountability across a multi-agency team. Prevented scope drift (e.g. referral form build is Kate Hobbs' responsibility, not mine).

Sprint vs Waterfall: The Evaluation

Sprint: Why it worked	Waterfall: Why I did not use it
Matched the 5-week EPA window	Would delay workshop by 2+ weeks
First governance output (RAID log) in week 1	Full plan impossible with incomplete data
Team could track progress week-by-week	Risk: planning consuming all available time
Requirements workshop in Week 3 immediately actionable

Limitation acknowledged: sprint without documentation is sprint without memory. Mitigated by POAP as the standing record.

Slide 9 Risk Identification and Management › 8 risks, 2 issues from the RAID log

This slide contained a visual RAID dashboard in the submitted deck. The full log content is below from the project tracker.

Risks (from RAID Log)

ID	Risk Title	Owner
R_001	Absent financial baseline undermines EPA submission and programme business case	David Agyei
R_002	Portal and referral form build blocked by CRM team absence	David Agyei
R_003	No named strategic owner above commissioning level: governance gap and escalation route undefined	Steve Humphrey
R_004	ICE Creates / Live Well Shropshire under excessive concurrent mobilisation demands	Lisa Middleton
R_005	Post-EPA continuity gap: project management resource unconfirmed beyond 18 June	Steve Humphrey
R_006	Low professional referrer uptake while telephone-only referral pathway remains in place	Lisa Middleton
R_007	Absence of standardised cross-provider data sharing agreement	Adam Riglar
R_008	Phase 1 institutional knowledge inaccessible: Sarah Knight on extended sick leave	Steve Humphrey

Issues (from Issues Log)

ID	Issue	Owner
I_001	CRM referral feedback loop failure: 31 outstanding referrals, clients waiting up to one month. Root cause: mailbox encryption. Fixed via new Swan mailbox.	Jim Ford
I_002	Phase 2 commenced without RAID log, Terms of Reference, risk register or agreed success measures.	David Agyei

Slide 10 Finance: Cost-Avoidance Case and Budget › The 390k illustrative calculation; proxy sourcing; what makes it real

KSBs covered: S3.1 (financial management), K2.2 (financial analysis), S9.2 (data interpretation)

The Cost-Avoidance Logic

SWANN's financial value is what it prevents. When residents receive early community support, they are less likely to escalate to formal care.

Escalation type	Unit cost	Source
Formal Care Act assessment	600 to 900 pounds each	ADASS 2024/25
Short-term reablement	1,500 to 3,000 pounds per episode	PSSRU Unit Costs 2023
Long-term home care	15,000 to 22,000 pounds per year	ADASS 2024/25
Residential placement	35,000 to 55,000 pounds per year	ADASS 2024/25

Internal budget: no additional spend requested. All development within existing ICT and commissioning resource.

Illustrative Calculation (conservative)

Step	Figure	Basis
Annual referrals once form is live	200	Estimate
Deflection rate	20%	NHS England social prescribing evidence, lower end
Escalations avoided	40	200 x 20%
Assessment avoidance	30,000 pounds	40 x 750 pounds mid-point
Care packages avoided	24	40 x 60% eligible rate (NHS Digital)
Care package avoidance	360,000 pounds	24 x 15,000 pounds/year (ADASS conservative)
Total indicative avoidance	390,000 pounds/year	All inputs labelled as estimates or proxies

Key distinction: Every assumption is labelled [ASSUMPTION: PROXY] in the Cost Avoidance doc. The 390k is not a forecast; it is a demonstration of what becomes measurable once Phase 2's infrastructure is live. Sent to Lisa Middleton for validation. Five outstanding questions remain; meeting scheduled 23 June.

Slide 11 Leading and Managing People: Managing Change › Barriers encountered and how each was addressed

KSBs covered: S7.1 (managing change), K2.1 (influencing behaviour), S10.1 (stakeholder management), B3.2 (change leadership)

Three groups all need to change how they work: professional referrers (telephone to digital), providers (email to CRM), commissioning team (spreadsheets to live dashboard).

Barrier	Response
Jim Ford's concern: "Phase 1 hasn't started as planned." Risk of proceeding to Phase 2 on a broken foundation.	Addressed by designing a concurrent Phase 1 tidy-up workstream within Phase 2. Jim Ford is now a core Phase 2 team member. His concern is tracked in the Issues Log (I_002).
Professional referrers abandoning calls due to hold times. Explicit resistance to telephone pathway.	Electronic referral form confirmed as Priority One. Requirements workshop 2 June. Co-design approach with referrers involved in shaping the form.
Provider response format (3 bullet points) incompatible with complex referral journeys, causing delays.	Phase 2 provider access workstream will replace email updates with structured CRM interface. Interim protocol being negotiated with Adam Riglar (ICE Creates).

Slide 12 Building Relationships: Stakeholder Engagement › Stakeholder map; approach taken for each key relationship

KSBs covered: S10.1 (stakeholder management), K6.3 (influence without authority), B4.1 (builds relationships)

I inherited a project with no governance and a team who had not worked together formally. Building relationships quickly was not optional; it was the project.

Stakeholder	Role	Approach
Lisa Middleton	Commissioning Officer (Chair)	Manage closely. Shared POAP in advance for preview before wider circulation. Explicit endorsement obtained at 27 May meeting. Four-document package sent 28 May for review.
Steve Humphrey	Line Manager / PMO	Manage closely. Weekly 1:1s throughout EPA period. Guidance on financial method and sprint approach acted on. EPA protected as primary workload.
Kate Hobbs / Katie Done	CRM Team	Keep satisfied. Portal demonstrated at 27 May meeting. Requirements workshop 2 June. Relationship built around their constraints, not mine. Kate questioned a meeting; responded with a clear agenda rather than defending the diary slot.
Jim Ford	Customer Services	Keep informed. Phase 1 concern raised 20 May; treated as legitimate, not operational friction. Made a Phase 2 core team member.
Lesley Richards	Contracts Officer	Keep informed. "Dashboard lead" reworded to "main contact person" in response to direct feedback at the 27 May meeting. Demonstrates responsiveness.
ICE Creates (Adam Riglar)	Live Well Shropshire	Keep informed. Mobilisation pressures (120 volunteers transferred from Age UK) acknowledged and documented as R_004, not treated as negligence.

Slide 13 Communication Skills: Methods and Audiences › Communication approach by audience and channel

This slide was primarily visual in the submitted deck. Key communication evidence is below.

Communication by Audience

Audience	Channel	Evidence
Project team (weekly)	Wednesday meetings; POAP as live doc on SharePoint	Weekly cadence established 27 May; POAP adopted as single source of truth
Commissioner (Lisa)	Written; formal four-document package	ToR, Success Outcome, Cost Avoidance, RAID log all sent 28 May in advance of David being OOO
CRM team (Katie, Kate)	Demonstration, written requirements	Portal demo 27 May; requirements workshop 2 June; acceptance criteria agreed
SWANN partnership (all providers)	Monthly wider meeting; email	Partnership meeting 27 May; Phase 2 overview presented; provider-specific risks acknowledged
Line manager (Steve H)	Weekly 1:1s	Sprint approach, financial method, and workload protection all agreed through 1:1 conversations

Communication Style Evidence

Adjusted from "dashboard lead" to "main contact person" in response to Lesley Richards' direct feedback. Demonstrates active listening and responsiveness.
Sent governance package evening of 28 May (D_008 in decision log) to give Lisa the weekend to review. Communication timing was a deliberate choice, not a convenience.
Kate Hobbs questioned a meeting. Responded with a structured 30-minute agenda with four named outcomes rather than defending the diary slot.