Presentation Speaker Notes — David Agyei.

20 minutes · 13 slides · Open alongside PowerPoint on your second screen

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

Slides 1-4: How my personal leadership and strategic choices shaped the new service pathway.

  1. 1 Title
  2. 2 Managing Self
  3. 3 Decision Making
  4. 4 Progress to Date

Slides 5-9: Managing delivery risks and setting clear project boundaries through strong governance controls.

  1. 5 Three Recommendations
  2. 6 Operational Context
  3. 7 Scope and Objectives
  4. 8 Project Management Tools
  5. 9 Risk Management

Slides 10-13: Proving our cost avoidance models while leading change and engaging key stakeholders.

  1. 10 Finance
  2. 11 Managing Change
  3. 12 Stakeholder Engagement
  4. 13 Communication

Target 20 minutes total · Do not overrun slides 3 or 10

Keyword jogs for each slide. Bold lead word only — expand verbally from the jog, not from a script.

Slides 1-4: How my personal leadership and strategic choices shaped the new service pathway. ›

1 · Title · 1 min

  1. Title is intentional — not a form project; a service pathway redesign
  2. Financial emergency — council that cannot afford this to keep not working
  3. Own the room — name, role, council; say it once; move on

2 · Managing Self · 2 mins

  1. Four workstreams — SWANN Phase 2 (primary), EHM Mapping (deprioritised), EPA submission (parallel), IMPACT Board (observation only)
  2. Named formally — capacity risk to Steve H and Charlie; in writing; not absorbed silently
  3. Sprint goals — defined deliverables per week; prevented reactive drift
  4. EPA as structure — governance documents ARE the project work; no duplication
  5. Pre-planned absence — package sent Thursday evening; Lisa had the weekend to review

3 · Decision Making · 2 mins

  1. Concurrent vs Sequential — Phase 1 problems caused by absence of Phase 2 capabilities; sequential fails on first principles
  2. Sprint vs Waterfall — 5-week window; requirements unknown at start; waterfall locks in the wrong plan
  3. Dynamics vs Standalone form — referral tracking is the entire financial case; standalone form = data silo = no evidence
  4. Evaluation method — cost-benefit analysis, options appraisal, Green Book do-nothing baseline
& the three decisions (points 1 to 3)

If asked “take me through your slide on the three decisions”: use this table. Decision made, alternative rejected, why. That structure is itself a distinction answer.

Decision areaChoice madeAlternative rejectedWhy this choice
Delivery method Agile/sprint approach Waterfall/traditional project plan
  1. Requirements Were emergent so I initiated iterative mapping across departments before specifying the data governance model.
  2. Agile Allowed adaptation as understanding developed.
  3. Waterfall Would have locked in the wrong solution early.
Referral channel Microsoft Dynamics portal Standalone form or spreadsheet
  1. Integration Dynamics connects to existing council infrastructure so data flows rather than being re-entered.
  2. Standalone risk A standalone form would replicate Phase 1: data captured but not connected to anything trackable.
Workstream structure Concurrent workstreams Sequential (one after another)
  1. Sequential cost Would have added 6 to 8 weeks.
  2. Concurrent gain Required dependency management but delivered faster and allowed early learning across streams.
Evaluative sentence (say this after point 4): “What this showed me was that the evaluation method matters as much as the decision — naming the criteria made the outcome defensible, not just directionally right.”

4 · Progress to Date · 1.5 mins

  1. Seven implemented — RAID log, ToR, Success Outcome, Cost Avoidance, Requirements Workshop, POAP, weekly meeting series; all by 5 June
  2. Next steps — form build, provider access, ToR sign-off, financial validation with Lisa 23 June, comms plan, form live by September
  3. Post-submission update — second workshop 10 June; financial meeting 23 June; form build status: confirm with Kate Hobbs
Slides 5-9: Managing delivery risks and setting clear project boundaries through strong governance controls. ›

5 · Three Recommendations · 2 mins

  1. Governance Strategic Owner is currently TBC because the permanent departmental home is being finalised.
  2. Mitigation The PMO steering group holds temporary operational custody to prevent stagnation.
  3. Architecture The infrastructure design remains completely system-agnostic so it can seamlessly adapt to any future owner.
Full version

The strategic ownership of the pathway remains TBC while the council finalises its permanent departmental home. To mitigate this risk, I secured agreement for the PMO steering group to retain temporary operational custody; this ensures momentum is maintained until final sign-off at the post-transformation board review. Crucially, I led the technical design to be system-agnostic; ensuring seamless future portability and commercial flexibility.

6 · Operational Context · 1.5 mins

  1. £121m — financial emergency September 2025; MHCLG scrutiny; every service must demonstrate demand deflection
  2. Phase 1 not working — three failures: low professional referrer uptake, broken feedback loop, absent data infrastructure
  3. 31 outstanding referrals — surfaced 27 May; root cause mailbox encryption; fixed via Swan mailbox
  4. Update for 18 June — 13 remaining with Shropshire Mental Health; confirm count before 14:00

7 · Scope and Objectives · 1.5 mins

  1. A — Referral form — Dynamics 365 portal; Priority One
  2. B — Provider access — replace email updates with structured CRM interface
  3. C — Dashboard — Power BI; Lesley Richards main contact
  4. D — Self-referral launch — soft to public; comms plan required
  5. E — Data capture — signposting field, next of kin in CRM
  6. F — Liquid Logic — assessment note only; subject to separate senior decision; not delivery
  7. Explicit out of scope — Phase 1 delivery; provider contract management; name them; boundary-setting is governance

8 · Project Management Tools · 2 mins

  1. Ownership Requirements were emergent so I initiated iterative mapping to establish the data governance model.
Full version

Because the initial requirements were emergent, I refused to let the process stall. I initiated and personally drove iterative mapping sessions across departments to establish a robust data governance model from scratch.

9 · Risk Management · 1.5 mins

  1. Governance Strategic Owner is currently TBC because the permanent departmental home is being finalised.
  2. Mitigation The PMO steering group holds temporary operational custody to prevent stagnation.
  3. Architecture The infrastructure design remains completely system-agnostic so it can seamlessly adapt to any future owner.
Full version

The strategic ownership of the pathway remains TBC while the council finalises its permanent departmental home. To mitigate this risk, I secured agreement for the PMO steering group to retain temporary operational custody; this ensures momentum is maintained until final sign-off at the post-transformation board review. Crucially, I led the technical design to be system-agnostic; ensuring seamless future portability and commercial flexibility.

Slides 10-13: Proving our cost avoidance models while leading change and engaging key stakeholders. ›

10 · Finance · 2 mins

  1. Cost avoidance logic — early community support reduces escalation to formal care
  2. Calculation — 200 referrals × 20% deflection = 40 avoided; £30k assessment + £360k care packages = £390k indicative
  3. Conservative inputs — ADASS/PSSRU proxies; NHS England lower end (15-25%); all labelled as estimates
  4. Defensible because transparent — five assumptions documented; more credible than one unverified figure
  5. No additional budget — all within existing ICT and commissioning resource
Evaluative sentence (say this after point 5): “The limitation of that approach was that every figure rests on proxy data until Phase 2’s infrastructure is live — which is itself the argument for building it.”

11 · Managing Change · 1.5 mins

  1. Jim Ford’s concern — “Phase 1 hasn’t started”; response: concurrent tidy-up workstream inside Phase 2; Ford now a core team member
  2. Professional referrers — abandoning calls due to hold times; response: form as Priority One; co-design in requirements workshop
  3. Provider response format — 3-bullet structure too restrictive; response: Phase 2 provider access workstream; CRM replaces email
  4. Three change groups — referrers (telephone to digital), providers (email to CRM), commissioning team (spreadsheet to dashboard)
Evaluative sentence (say this after point 4): “What this showed me was that treating Jim Ford’s concern as legitimate rather than as operational friction made him a Phase 2 advocate within two weeks.”

12 · Stakeholder Engagement · 1.5 mins

  1. Engagement I mapped and engaged 73+ staff during the FFP Comms Update data collection phase.
  2. Escalation My analysis directly resulted in 4 critical recommendations escalated straight to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT).
  3. Influence I leveraged these findings to secure direct strategic engagement with the Health and Wellbeing Board.
Full version

I led the stakeholder engagement strategy by mapping and consulting with over 73 staff members during the FFP Comms Update. Through synthesising this extensive feedback, I formulated and escalated 4 critical strategic recommendations directly to the Corporate Leadership Team and drove collaboration with the Health and Wellbeing Board to align the pathway with wider corporate objectives.

13 · Communication · 1 min

  1. Engagement I mapped and engaged 73+ staff during the FFP Comms Update data collection phase.
  2. Escalation My analysis directly resulted in 4 critical recommendations escalated straight to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT).
  3. Influence I leveraged these findings to secure direct strategic engagement with the Health and Wellbeing Board.
Full version

I led the stakeholder engagement strategy by mapping and consulting with over 73 staff members during the FFP Comms Update. Through synthesising this extensive feedback, I formulated and escalated 4 critical strategic recommendations directly to the Corporate Leadership Team and drove collaboration with the Health and Wellbeing Board to align the pathway with wider corporate objectives.