CMI Level 5 and Level 7 Management Reference
David Agyei · Shropshire Council
Live search across jargon and theories. Type a term to filter instantly. Click any theory to expand its full explanation.
Section 1
Jargon Buster
Plain-English definitions for management, project, and public sector terms.
Find the correct letter group below and paste a copy of this block inside it. Create a new letter group if the letter does not yet exist, following the same pattern.
<div class="jargon-card" data-search="term synonym abbreviation keyword">
<div class="jargon-term">TERM NAME</div>
<p class="jargon-def">Plain-English definition. 2 to 3 sentences maximum.</p>
<span class="jargon-context">Optional context tag e.g. EPA / CMI / Public Sector</span>
</div>
The data-search value drives the live search. Include the term, any abbreviation, related names, and synonyms, all in lowercase, space separated.
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. The national membership body for directors of adult social care in England. Publishes annual data on unit costs and spending that is widely used as a benchmark in financial modelling for social care investment cases.
EPA: Phase 2 cost avoidance modelAn iterative approach to project delivery that prioritises flexibility over rigid upfront planning. Work is organised into short cycles called sprints, enabling the team to adapt as requirements emerge. Contrasts with Waterfall. In the SWANN Phase 2 context, a hybrid approach was used: Agile internally, milestone reporting language externally for governance.
SWANN Phase 2 delivery methodThe process of ensuring that planned project benefits are actually delivered and measured after implementation, not just claimed at approval stage. Goes beyond going live to track whether the expected value has materialised. The SWANN Phase 2 cost avoidance figure moves from a proxy estimate to a real benefit only through a benefits realisation measurement plan once the portal is live.
HM Treasury's framework for structuring public sector investment decisions. Five cases must be addressed: Strategic (why do this and why now?), Economic (what is the best option?), Commercial (can we procure and contract it?), Financial (is it affordable?), Management (can we deliver it?). All five are required for Treasury, Cabinet Office, or ministerial approval of significant spend.
HMT Green Book frameworkA financial benefit achieved by preventing future costs rather than reducing current spending. Distinct from cost saving. Example: early intervention in family support prevents escalation to statutory care proceedings, avoiding a future spend rather than cutting a current budget line. The SWANN Phase 2 financial model is built on cost avoidance of £390,000, not a direct saving.
EPA: financial caseSoftware used to manage and track interactions with service users or customers. At Shropshire Council, Microsoft Dynamics is the CRM platform used to process and manage referrals through the SWANN SPoR. Kate Hobbs (Senior CRM Applications Officer) manages the system configuration and data management.
SWANN Phase 2 technologyTwo or more project workstreams running in parallel rather than sequentially. Increases delivery speed but creates coordination risk: dependencies between workstreams can block progress if not actively managed. In SWANN Phase 2, five workstreams ran concurrently (data governance, referral form, provider access, CRM integration, reporting), with cross-workstream dependency checks built into each sprint retrospective.
SWANN Phase 2 delivery structureThe framework of policies, roles, and processes that determine how data is owned, accessed, managed, and assured within an organisation or partnership. In SWANN Phase 2, establishing data governance across five partner organisations was a foundational workstream: without agreed data ownership and consent standards, the referral portal could not lawfully share personal data between agencies.
SWANN Phase 2 foundational workstreamThe process of identifying which tasks, decisions, or outputs must be completed before another can proceed. Dependency mapping prevents schedule conflicts and reveals the critical path. In SWANN Phase 2, the data governance workstream was a dependency for both the referral form and the CRM integration: neither could be completed until data sharing agreements were signed.
SWANN Phase 2 project planningThe final assessment of a degree apprenticeship, taken after the learning period ends. Tests whether the apprentice has met all the Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs) defined in the standard. For CMI Level 5 Operations and Departmental Manager, the EPA consists of AM2 (20-minute presentation followed by 40-minute Q&A) and AM1 (60-minute professional discussion).
CMI Level 5 and Level 7A structured reference document that maps each KSB to the specific pieces of evidence that demonstrate it, with page, section, and quote references. In David's EPA preparation, the ELD is the primary navigation tool during the assessment: assessors can jump to any KSB and the ELD tells David exactly which piece of work to cite and where to find the supporting detail.
EPA preparation toolDemand on a service caused by a failure to do something, or do something right, for the service user the first time. Coined by John Seddon. Example: a family making a second referral to SWANN because their first referral went unprocessed is failure demand. Reducing failure demand is a key design principle behind the Phase 2 portal and referral tracking.
HM Treasury's official guidance on appraisal and evaluation in central government. Sets out how to assess the costs, benefits, and risks of policy and spending proposals. Underpins the 5-Case Business Case model. Relevant to any public sector investment decision that requires ministerial, HMT, or Cabinet Office approval.
Public sector governanceThe three dimensions of competence assessed in a CMI apprenticeship EPA. Knowledge: what you understand (theory, frameworks, context). Skills: what you can do (practical capability). Behaviours: how you conduct yourself (professionalism, ethics, self-awareness). Every piece of evidence in your portfolio is mapped to one or more KSBs.
CMI EPA frameworkA requirements prioritisation technique used in business analysis and project planning. Four categories: Must Have (non-negotiable for this delivery), Should Have (important but not critical path), Could Have (desirable if time and resource allow), and Won't Have (explicitly out of scope for this iteration, may be revisited). Prevents scope creep and manages stakeholder expectations.
The well-documented tendency for project cost and time estimates to be systematically over-optimistic. Recognised by HM Treasury in the Green Book, which requires public sector business cases to apply an uplift to base costs to account for it. In practice: if the SWANN Phase 2 estimate is £X, Treasury guidance expects an optimism bias adjustment to be applied before the figure is presented as an approved budget.
HMT Green Book requirementA framework for scanning the external environment. Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental. Used to identify factors outside the organisation that may affect a project or strategy. In a public sector context: Political factors include ministerial priorities and election cycles; Legal factors include FOI obligations, GDPR, and the Public Sector Equality Duty.
A legal obligation under the Equality Act 2010 requiring public bodies to have due regard to equality in their functions. Three aims: eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different groups. Must be considered in any policy, project, or service change in a public sector organisation.
Legal compliance requirementResearch unit based at the University of Kent and the London School of Economics. Publishes annual unit costs of health and social care, widely used as the benchmark source for costing social care interventions in financial models. Used alongside ADASS data in the SWANN Phase 2 cost avoidance proxy calculation.
EPA: financial model sourceA financial calculation that uses a related, observable figure as a stand-in for a cost that cannot yet be directly measured. Used when direct data is unavailable. The SWANN Phase 2 £390,000 cost avoidance figure is a proxy: it uses ADASS and PSSRU unit costs to estimate the value of prevented escalations, clearly labelled as a proxy rather than an evidenced outturn figure.
EPA: financial case integrityA project management tool for tracking Risks (things that might go wrong), Assumptions (conditions that must hold for the plan to be valid), Issues (problems that have already materialised), and Dependencies (tasks or decisions that must occur before something else can proceed). In SWANN Phase 2, the unconfirmed strategic owner was formally documented as a RAID risk rather than managed informally.
A unified, single entry point for referrals into a multi-agency service or partnership. Prevents duplication, ensures tracking, and creates a clear accountability trail. The SWANN SPoR is the mechanism through which families are referred to participating organisations: British Red Cross, Shropshire Mental Health Support, Community Resource, Live Well Shropshire, and the ICB.
SWANN Phase 2 core designA fixed-length work cycle in Agile delivery, typically one to four weeks. At the end of each sprint the team reviews output against goals and plans the next sprint. In SWANN Phase 2, sprint retrospectives included a dependency check between concurrent workstreams to surface conflicts before they became blockers.
A formally agreed standard that defines the expected performance level for a service, typically including response times, resolution targets, and escalation triggers. In the SWANN context, 31 referrals had no SLA as of 27 May 2026; by 2 June this had reduced to 13 outstanding (Shropshire Mental Health) following a mailbox encryption fix. No formal SLAs exist in the system (confirmed by Kate Hobbs and Jim Ford, 2 June 2026). Establishing SLAs for the referral pathway is a specific Phase 2 output.
SWANN Phase 2 open riskThe multi-agency early intervention and prevention partnership at Shropshire Council, involving British Red Cross, Shropshire Mental Health Support, Community Resource, Live Well Shropshire, and the ICB. Phase 1 built an initial portal. Phase 2, led by David as Senior BA, focuses on data governance, electronic referral, provider access, CRM integration, and reporting infrastructure.
EPA: primary projectA traditional, sequential project management approach in which each phase must be fully completed before the next begins. Requirements are defined upfront; changes are costly to introduce later. Contrasts with Agile. Suitable when requirements are stable and well-understood. For SWANN Phase 2, Agile was chosen specifically because requirements for the data governance model and referral form fields were emergent.
Section 2
Theories and Models
Click any entry to expand. What it is, what it does, example, and application.
Find or create the correct letter group and paste a copy of this block inside it.
<details class="theory-card" data-search="theory name author creator key terms synonyms">
<summary>
<span class="t-chevron">›</span>
<span class="t-text">
<span class="t-name">Theory Name</span>
<span class="t-tag">One-line description · Author / Year</span>
</span>
</summary>
<div class="theory-body">
<div class="theory-block">
<span class="tb-label">What it is</span>
<p class="tb-content">Clear definition. What the theory claims or proposes.</p>
</div>
<div class="theory-block">
<span class="tb-label">What it does</span>
<p class="tb-content">How you use it. What problem it solves.</p>
</div>
<div class="theory-block">
<span class="tb-label">Example</span>
<p class="tb-content">A concrete example, ideally from your own work.</p>
</div>
<div class="theory-block">
<span class="tb-label">Application</span>
<p class="tb-content">How to use it in your EPA or management practice.</p>
</div>
</div>
</details>
A goal-oriented change management model by Prosci. Five sequential milestones individuals must reach for change to succeed: Awareness (of why change is needed), Desire (to participate and support it), Knowledge (how to change), Ability (to implement the new behaviours), and Reinforcement (to sustain the change).
Diagnoses exactly where a change programme is failing at the individual level. Rather than asking "why isn't the project working?", it asks "which stage is blocking people?" This focuses remedial effort precisely rather than broadly.
SWANN Phase 2 digital referral portal. Frontline staff may have Awareness (they know the portal is coming) but lack Desire (they see no personal benefit in changing referral habits). ADKAR identifies Desire as the gap and focuses communication effort there before investing in training.
Use before designing a change communications plan. Do not invest in training (Knowledge) until Desire is secured. Limitation: assumes linearity; in practice people can loop back between stages. Phase 1 of SWANN stalled partly because Ability was assumed before Knowledge and Desire had been established across partner organisations.
Nine team roles people tend to naturally adopt, grouped into three clusters. Thinking roles: Plant (creative ideas), Monitor Evaluator (critical analysis), Specialist (expertise). Action roles: Shaper (drive), Implementer (practical delivery), Completer Finisher (attention to detail). People roles: Coordinator (delegating), Teamworker (cohesion), Resource Investigator (external contacts).
Explains why some teams work and others do not, independent of individual ability. A team of high performers in the same roles will still underperform because complementary roles are absent. Helps identify gaps and manage team dynamics explicitly.
A project team heavy on Shapers and Plants generates strong ideas and energy but misses deadlines and leaves detail unfinished because there is no Completer Finisher. Adding one changes the output without replacing anyone.
Use to structure team composition conversations or diagnose why a team is underperforming. Pair with Situational Leadership to adapt your management style to the team's role profile. Limitation: people often play different roles in different contexts; self-report questionnaires can reflect aspiration rather than behaviour.
A four-stage coaching conversation framework. Goal (what do you want to achieve?), Reality (where are you now?), Options (what could you do?), Will (what will you do and by when?). Non-directive by design: the coach asks, the coachee thinks and decides.
Structures a coaching conversation so that solutions come from the coachee rather than the coach. Builds ownership and self-efficacy. The coach's role is to hold the space and ask powerful questions, not to provide answers.
Coachee returning to work after burnout. Goal: return to a sustainable role. Reality: struggling with confidence and sleep. Options: phased return, adjusted responsibilities, counselling, peer support. Will: three specific commitments before the next session.
Your West Midlands Coaching Pool practice over five years with 15 coachees. Key adaptation for EPA: you shifted from purely non-directive GROW to a more scaffolded approach in burnout cases where coachees lacked the capacity to respond productively to fully open questions. Name this adaptation explicitly as evidence of reflective practice. Limitation: assumes coachee readiness and self-awareness; does not work well in early burnout or crisis states without adaptation.
A model arguing there is no single best leadership style. Effective leaders adapt their approach based on the development level of the individual for a specific task. Four styles matched to four development levels: Directing (high task, low relationship) for D1 (low competence, high commitment); Coaching for D2 (some competence, low commitment); Supporting for D3 (high competence, variable commitment); Delegating for D4 (high competence, high commitment).
Gives a diagnostic tool to assess where someone is for a given task, then select the appropriate leadership behaviour. Prevents the common mistake of applying the same style to everyone regardless of their need.
An experienced social worker new to digital referral systems (high competence in their domain, D1 on the new system) needs Directing on the tool, not Delegating. The same person's caseload management needs Delegating. Style shifts by task, not by person.
Use to frame how your leadership style shifted across your portfolio: Coaching style with your burnout coachees, Directing in the structured Kate Hobbs meeting, Delegating with experienced SWANN partners on areas within their authority. Name Hersey and Blanchard explicitly in your professional discussion. Limitation: development level is task-specific and can be misdiagnosed; the four-box model is a simplification of complex human dynamics.
A sequential model for leading organisation-wide change. Eight steps: (1) Create urgency; (2) Build a guiding coalition; (3) Form a strategic vision; (4) Enlist a volunteer army; (5) Enable action by removing barriers; (6) Generate short-term wins; (7) Sustain acceleration; (8) Institute change in the culture. Steps must be followed in order; skipping steps causes failure.
Provides a structured roadmap that explicitly addresses the human and political dimensions of change, not just the technical. The model is built on Kotter's research into why 70% of change programmes fail, most of which fail at steps 1 through 4.
SWANN Phase 2 mapped to Kotter: Step 1 (urgency): £121m emergency and 31 outstanding referrals with no SLA (27 May; 13 remaining as of 2 June). Step 3 (vision): the portal and cost avoidance case. Step 5 (remove barriers): fixing the mailbox encryption issue. Step 6 (short-term wins): the As-Is Meetings Mapping influencing Director Shaw and HWBB adoption.
Use to show structured change leadership thinking. The Kotter lens also surfaces a risk: as of June 2026, you are between steps 4 and 5 and have not yet secured full commitment across all partner organisations. Name this gap honestly and name the mitigation. Limitation: sequential model does not reflect the messiness of real change; in practice steps overlap and loop.
Three stages: Unfreeze (challenge the current state and create readiness for change), Change (transition to the new way), Refreeze (embed and stabilise the new state so it becomes the norm). The simplest and most widely recognised change model. Also developed Force Field Analysis as a companion tool for mapping driving and restraining forces.
Highlights that change requires active destabilisation of the status quo before movement is possible, and active consolidation afterwards. Many change programmes skip unfreezing (assuming buy-in exists) or refreezing (assuming change will sustain itself). Both assumptions cause failure.
As-Is Meetings Mapping project at FFP. Unfreeze: presenting the £770k to £851k cost data shook confidence in the existing meeting culture and made the status quo uncomfortable. Change: Director Shaw commits to reviewing his own meeting attendance. Refreeze: HWBB adopts the methodology cross-organisationally, institutionalising the approach.
The simplest theoretical anchor for explaining change logic in a professional discussion. More accessible than Kotter if you need a quick, credible framework. Limitation: the linear model does not account for resistance re-emerging after refreeze, or for the fact that multiple change initiatives often run simultaneously, creating competing unfreeze and refreeze dynamics.
Five levels of human need arranged in a pyramid. From base to apex: Physiological (food, shelter, sleep), Safety (security, stability, employment), Love and Belonging (relationships, acceptance, team), Esteem (recognition, achievement, status), Self-Actualisation (realising full potential, meaning). Maslow argued lower-order needs must be met before higher-order motivators become relevant.
Explains why certain motivational approaches land and others do not, depending on where the individual currently sits on the hierarchy. A development opportunity (Esteem) will not motivate someone who feels insecure in their job (Safety). The model directs attention to unmet lower-order needs as the first diagnostic step.
A team member underperforming after a restructure announcement may be operating at the Safety level. Offering stretch assignments and recognition (Esteem) will not land until job security concerns are addressed. The right intervention is a direct, honest conversation about their future in the team, not a development plan.
Use when discussing motivation, people management, or why change programmes fail to engage staff. Always name the limitation: the evidence for a strict hierarchy is weak. People can be motivated at multiple levels simultaneously, and cultural context shapes which needs are prioritised. Alderfer's ERG theory (Existence, Relatedness, Growth) offers a less rigid alternative worth naming as a comparator.
Seven interdependent elements that must all be aligned for an organisation to function effectively. Hard elements (easier to define and change): Strategy, Structure, Systems. Soft elements (harder to change, often ignored): Shared Values (the centre), Style (leadership culture), Staff (people and capability), Skills (core competencies). All seven are connected; changing one requires adjusting the others.
Diagnoses why change is not embedding. Most failed change programmes change the hard elements (structure, systems) without adjusting the soft elements (culture, skills, style). The 7S model makes this misalignment visible and frames the remediation work required.
SWANN Phase 1 analysis through the 7S lens: Strategy was clear (early intervention partnership). Systems were built (portal). But Shared Values (cross-agency commitment to data discipline), Structure (clear accountability for who enters what), and Skills (staff trained and confident in referral processes) were misaligned. The 7S model would have predicted the failure.
Strong framework for diagnosing Phase 1 failure and framing why Phase 2 is designed differently. Use to demonstrate systems thinking rather than linear problem-solving. Limitation: the model describes alignment but does not prescribe how to achieve it; it is diagnostic rather than prescriptive.
A stakeholder mapping tool plotting stakeholders on a 2x2 grid. Power (ability to influence the project) on one axis; Interest (degree of concern with the outcome) on the other. Four quadrants: Key Players (high power, high interest: manage closely); Keep Satisfied (high power, low interest); Keep Informed (low power, high interest); Monitor (low power, low interest: minimum effort).
Prioritises stakeholder engagement effort and shapes communication strategy. Prevents the common mistake of applying identical engagement to all stakeholders regardless of their influence or interest, which wastes resource and misses the people who matter most.
SWANN stakeholder map: Lisa Middleton (Commissioning Officer) is a Key Player. ICB commissioning lead is Key Player. British Red Cross (high interest, lower organisational power over the programme) is Keep Informed. Select committees would be Monitor unless the project gains political profile through a critical incident.
Named in your theory map and directly evidenced through SWANN engagement. Key insight for your EPA: in a multi-agency context, passive non-engagement from Key Players is more dangerous than active opposition from Monitor stakeholders, because it is invisible until something fails. Name this as a nuance that goes beyond the basic model. Limitation: the matrix is static; stakeholder positions shift as a project evolves and political context changes.
A framework that maps the causal chain from inputs and activities through to outputs, outcomes, and long-term impact. Forces explicit articulation of the assumptions linking each step. The chain typically reads: Inputs (resources invested) produce Activities, which produce Outputs (measurable deliverables), which lead to Outcomes (changes in behaviour or condition), which produce Impact (long-term systemic change or value).
Makes the logic behind an investment decision transparent and testable. Each arrow in the chain is an assumption: naming it allows the evaluator to test whether it holds. Projects that fail to articulate their theory of change often conflate outputs with outcomes, or claim impact they cannot attribute.
SWANN Phase 2: Portal investment (input) produces a tracking system for referrals (output), which enables earlier identification of families needing support (outcome), which reduces escalation to high-cost statutory care proceedings (outcome), which produces £390,000 in cost avoidance (impact). Each arrow is an assumption. The link from outcome to impact depends on evidence that early intervention changes case trajectories.
Central to your Phase 2 business case and financial model. The strength of the case depends on the credibility of each causal link. Be ready to name which links are evidenced (ADASS and PSSRU published data) and which remain assumed (the local Shropshire trajectory data does not yet exist). Being precise about this distinction is itself evidence of distinction-level analytical rigour.
Four sequential stages of team development: Forming (orientation, testing boundaries, polite), Storming (conflict, resistance, competing priorities), Norming (establishing shared norms, cohesion building), Performing (goal-directed, flexible, productive). A fifth stage, Adjourning, was added in 1977 to describe the dissolution of the team at project end.
Normalises conflict in teams. Storming is not a sign that the team is broken; it is a necessary passage before norms can be established and performance can begin. Gives leaders a framework for diagnosing where a team is and choosing the right intervention at each stage.
The SWANN partnership exhibited Storming behaviour around data sharing agreements, referral accountabilities, and reporting expectations across providers. The structured 27 May partnership meeting and subsequent actions around the encryption fix and requirements workshop planning moved it toward Norming.
Use when discussing team or partnership development. Reference the Storming behaviour in the SWANN partnership around data sharing, referral accountability and reporting expectations across providers. The structured 27 May meeting and subsequent actions moved it toward Norming. Use to explain why early partnership friction is expected and manageable, not a sign of project failure.