Audio
Speed:

Proof - Star Achievements

David Agyei | CMI Level 5 | Assessment: 18 June 2026 | What You Did and What Changed

How to use: Each card is a SAO statement: Situation, "I did...", Outcome. Read the Outcome line first if you need a quick answer under pressure. Distinction-level cards appear first. The KSB tags show which standards each achievement covers.

Distinction-Level Evidence

These six achievements map directly to the six KSBs awarded Pass+Distinction in the submitted EPA portfolio.

›
Commissioner-Level Relationships: Earned, Not Assigned Pass+Distinction S6.3 Stakeholder relationships

& commissioner-level relationships: earned, not assigned?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Phase 2 needed trust from Lisa Middleton, Steve Humphrey and operational partners. No prior relationships or infrastructure.
  2. What I did: built trust through action, not assurance: proactive governance docs, RACI amended live for Lesley (27 May), structured agenda for Kate Hobbs, pack sent Thursday evening before OOO.
  3. Outcome: Lisa: "sets us up for success, really clear." Steve: "no intention of taking you off it... essential for your EPA." Saywell: partners changed their data practices.
  4. KSBs: S6.3 Stakeholder relationships. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
SWANN Phase 2 required trust from senior stakeholders including the commissioner (Lisa Middleton), the strategic lead (Steve Humphrey), and a network of operational partners across Adult Social Care, Integrated Community Equipment, and the voluntary sector. No prior relationships or project infrastructure existed at the start of Phase 2.
What I did
I built the relationships through action rather than assurance. I sent governance documentation proactively, amended the RACI live in the 27 May meeting when Lesley Richards gave direct feedback about her role title, produced a structured agenda for Kate Hobbs when she questioned a meeting's purpose, and sent the governance pack on Thursday evening before going OOO so Lisa had time to review without waiting for my return.
Outcome
Lisa Middleton on POAP v0.3: "sets us up for success, really clear." Steve Humphrey: "I have no intention of taking you off it for the time being because it is essential for your EPA." Charlotte Saywell observed that in the Community and Family Hub data mapping exercise, partners changed their data collection practices as a direct result of David's engagement.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"I have no intention of taking you off it for the time being because it is essential for your EPA." (Steve Humphrey, 28 May 2026, documented in RAID D_006)
S6.3 Pass+Distinction RAID D_004 RAID D_006
›
Financial Analysis Under Uncertainty Pass+Distinction S10.2 Financial planning

& financial analysis under uncertainty?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: business case needed financials. No verified cost data; care packages £24k-£60k a year; no verified conversion rates.
  2. What I did: designed a proxy costing method rather than faking precision. Published cost data, every assumption stated, every figure labelled illustrative. Reached ~£390k cost avoidance.
  3. Outcome: defensible because transparent about its limits; sent to Lisa for validation.
  4. KSBs: S10.2 Financial planning. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
The EPA business case required a financial analysis. No verified cost data was available from the commissioner. Early care packages in Shropshire cost between £24,000 and £60,000 per year; verified referral conversion rates did not exist for this client group.
What I did
I designed a proxy costing methodology rather than fabricating precision that did not exist. I used published cost data as the basis, stated all assumptions explicitly, clearly labelled every figure as illustrative, and produced a cost-avoidance figure of approximately
£390,000

"SWANN's financial case is built on cost avoidance, not savings." Conservative assumptions: 200 referrals per year, 20% deflection (lower end of NHS England social prescribing evidence of 15-25%), giving 40 escalations avoided, £30,000 assessment-level avoidance and £360,000 care package avoidance. Total indicative avoidance: £390,000 per year.

"This figure is illustrative and explicitly labelled as such. It has been sent to Lisa Middleton for validation. The analysis is more defensible for being transparent about its limitations than it would be if it presented a single unverified figure."

per year with a worked calculation. I identified Louise Forbes, Head of Commissioning, as the route to verified data and documented that dependency in the RAID log. I did not present uncertain data as certain.
Outcome
Steve Humphrey's employer statement: "He recognised early that he did not have the data to produce verified financial modelling, sought the data he needed from the commissioner, labelled all proxy assumptions clearly and produced a credible and honest analysis." The financial analysis was accepted as part of the submitted portfolio.
What this showed me was that labelling every assumption explicitly made the model more credible, not less — transparency about the limitation is itself the methodological defence.
"He labelled all proxy assumptions clearly and produced a credible and honest analysis." (Steve Humphrey, Employer Statement, Appendix B)
S10.2 Pass+Distinction Proposal Section 6
›
Options Appraisal: Chose the Right Architecture Pass+Distinction K1.2 Strategic thinking

& options appraisal: chose the right architecture?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Phase 2 needed a digital referral route. Three viable options: do nothing, a standalone MS Form, or a Dynamics 365 portal.
  2. What I did: evaluated all three on data integration, end-to-end tracking and evidenceable cost avoidance. Rejected do-nothing (worsens it) and standalone form (no CRM flow, no evidence). Recommended the Dynamics portal: the integration is the value.
  3. Outcome: panel accepted; Option 3 in build. Section 8 alternatives (defer, external consultant, standalone form) also rejected with reasons.
  4. KSBs: K1.2 Strategic thinking. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
SWANN Phase 2 required a digital referral route. Three technically viable options existed: do nothing, a standalone Microsoft Form outside the CRM, or a portal built within Dynamics 365. The business case depended on choosing the option that would make cost avoidance evidenceable.
What I did
I evaluated all three options against explicit criteria rooted in the Phase 2 purpose: data integration, end-to-end tracking, and the ability to generate a financial evidence base. I rejected Option 1 (do nothing) because it actively worsens the position. I rejected Option 2 (standalone form) because it solves the referral access problem but leaves the evidence and accountability problems unresolved; data would not flow into the CRM and cost avoidance could not be demonstrated. I recommended Option 3, the Dynamics 365 portal, with the rationale that the integration is the value: without CRM integration, Phase 2 cannot solve the evidence problem.
Outcome
The assessment panel accepted the recommendation. Option 3 is currently in build. The
Proposal Section 8

Alternative 1: Stabilise Phase 1 before starting Phase 2 (raised by Jim Ford, 20 May). Rejected: deferring would lock in the Phase 1 problems rather than fix them, since the Phase 1 issues are partly caused by the absence of Phase 2 capabilities.

Alternative 2: Commission an external consultant. Rejected: the cost for a six-week sprint was hard to justify, and someone without the existing relationships would have struggled to land the requirements workshop.

Alternative 3: A standalone form not integrated with CRM (Katie Done flagged a prior failed Microsoft Form, 27 May). Rejected: a standalone form creates a separate data silo and loses the referral tracking the business case depends on.

is the section that most clearly demonstrates strategic analytical thinking rather than operational execution. Lisa Middleton's response to the POAP that framed this decision: "sets us up for success, really clear."
What this showed me was that framing against rejected alternatives changes how a commissioner hears the recommendation — justified choice, not an asserted one.
"The integration is the value. Without CRM integration, Phase 2 cannot solve the evidence problem." (Project proposal, Section 8)
K1.2 Pass+Distinction Proposal Section 8
›
Phase 2 Project Leadership: Governance from Scratch Pass+Distinction S2.3 Project delivery

& phase 2 project leadership: governance from?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Phase 2 began with no governance, structure or roles. Politically significant: ASC, MHCLG scrutiny, live programme.
  2. What I did: built governance from scratch in two weeks: RAID log, ToR, POAP, Success Outcome Statement. Sent the pack Thursday evening before OOO so Lisa had the weekend (RAID D_008).
  3. Outcome: Steve Humphrey: "genuine project leadership... established governance that did not previously exist." Lisa: "sets us up for success."
  4. KSBs: S2.3 Project delivery. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
SWANN Phase 2 began without any governance documentation, project structure, or defined roles. The project had political and contractual significance: Adult Social Care, MHCLG scrutiny risk, and a live commissioned programme.
What I did
I established governance arrangements from scratch. Within the first two weeks I produced the RAID log, Terms of Reference, POAP, and Success Outcome Statement. I sent the four-document governance pack on Thursday evening before going OOO on Friday 29 May so that Lisa Middleton had the weekend to review rather than waiting until my return. This decision is documented in the RAID Decisions log as D_008.
Outcome
Steve Humphrey: "David has demonstrated genuine project leadership throughout Phase 2. He established governance arrangements that did not previously exist: the RAID log, Terms of Reference, POAP and success outcome statement were all produced by David within the first two weeks." Lisa Middleton: "sets us up for success, really clear."
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"David has demonstrated genuine project leadership throughout Phase 2. He established governance arrangements that did not previously exist." (Steve Humphrey, Employer Statement)
S2.3 Pass+Distinction RAID D_008
›
Seven Deliverables in Five Weeks Pass+Distinction S1.5 Managing multiple workstreams

& seven deliverables in five weeks?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Phase 2 launched with no governance, concurrent demands, and a hard EPA deadline of 5 June 17:00.
  2. What I did: ran seven workstreams at once: RAID, ToR, POAP, Success Outcome, financial analysis, EPA proposal, two CRM workshops. Prioritised by deadline and risk; RAID tracked dependencies.
  3. Outcome: all seven done, proposal in on time. 2 June workshop produced user stories, field list, acceptance criteria, build sequence; 10 June applied failure-demand to field design.
  4. KSBs: S1.5 Managing multiple workstreams. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
Phase 2 launched without governance, documentation, or structure. Concurrent demands included: establishing project governance, producing the financial analysis, engaging commissioners and stakeholders, running two CRM requirements workshops, and submitting the EPA proposal by a hard deadline of 5 June 17:00.
What I did
I managed seven distinct workstreams simultaneously across a five-week period: RAID log, Terms of Reference, POAP, Success Outcome Statement, Financial Analysis (draft v0.1 with proxy methodology), EPA Proposal (hard deadline), and two CRM requirements workshops (2 June and 10 June). I prioritised by external deadline and risk, used the RAID log to track dependencies and blockers, and completed the proposal submission before the deadline.
Outcome
All seven deliverables completed. EPA proposal submitted by deadline. The 2 June workshop produced user stories, an agreed field list, acceptance criteria, and a build sequence. The 10 June workshop applied failure demand principles to mandatory field design and agreed acceptance criteria for the provider portal.
What this showed me was that RAID-tracked prioritisation by deadline and risk is what kept seven concurrent deliverables from tripping each other.
S1.5 Pass+Distinction Actions A_001-A_012
›
Turning Opposition into Governance Improvement Pass+Distinction S3.1 Influencing outcomes

& turning opposition into governance improvement?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Jim Ford challenged (20 May) that Phase 2 should not proceed until Phase 1 was complete. A potential blocker.
  2. What I did: did not treat it as obstruction. Acknowledged it, logged it as Issue I_002, redesigned scope to fold in a Phase 1 review element. Turned the concern into a governance improvement.
  3. Outcome: Phase 2 proceeded with Jim engaged, not entrenched; I_002 resolved. Clearest example of influencing without formal authority.
  4. KSBs: S3.1 Influencing outcomes. Pass+Distinction.
Full version
Situation
Jim Ford raised a challenge on 20 May that Phase 2 should not proceed until Phase 1 was complete. This was a potential blocker to the entire project and could have been treated as obstruction or a reason to delay.
What I did
Rather than treating the challenge as obstruction, I acknowledged it openly, documented it as Issue I_002 in the RAID log, and redesigned the Phase 2 scope to incorporate a Phase 1 review element. I turned the concern into a governance improvement: the project would not ignore Phase 1 lessons but would address them systematically as part of Phase 2.
Outcome
Phase 2 proceeded with Jim's engagement secured rather than his opposition entrenched. The I_002 issue is documented as resolved in the RAID log. The challenge became a structural improvement rather than a delay. This is the clearest example of influencing an outcome without formal authority.
What this showed me was that ambiguity managed transparently is not a weakness. Ambiguity concealed is.
"Not afraid to speak out or challenge assumptions. Willing to explore difficult areas to ensure meaningful change." (Pippa Murphy, Witness Testimony)
S3.1 Pass+Distinction RAID I_002

Strong Evidence: Leadership in Practice

These six cards draw from witness testimonies and specific leadership moments. Each one is ready to use in the Professional Discussion.

›
Active Listening in Real Time: RACI Amended Before the Meeting Ended Strong Pass K7.1 / S7.3 Communication and active listening

& active listening in real time: raci?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: 27 May meeting. Lesley Richards said her RACI title "dashboard lead" implied workload she could not commit to. Live document.
  2. What I did: did not defer or promise to review later. Amended it to "main contact person" before the meeting ended, matching what she had agreed.
  3. Outcome: RACI matched her role, no recurring issue. Active listening producing an immediate practical change, not just acknowledgement.
  4. KSBs: K7.1 / S7.3, B2.2. Strong Pass. Appendix A.
Full version
Situation
In the 27 May stakeholder meeting, Lesley Richards gave direct feedback that her RACI role title of "dashboard lead" implied a workload she was not able to commit to. The RACI was a live project document.
What I did
I did not defer the change or promise to review it later. I amended the RACI to "main contact person" before the meeting ended, reflecting what Lesley had actually agreed to. No further conversation was needed.
Outcome
The RACI accurately reflected the role Lesley had agreed to. The meeting proceeded without the misalignment becoming a recurring issue. This is a concrete example of active listening producing an immediate, practical outcome rather than a verbal acknowledgement.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
K7.1 S7.3 B2.2 Appendix A Leadership Evidence
›
Coaching Impact: External Validation Over Five Years Strong Pass K4.2 / S4.2 Coaching and mentoring

& coaching impact: external validation over five?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: volunteer coach, West Midlands Pool, 5+ years, ~25 hours a year. Shanda Reid coordinates and reviewed evaluations.
  2. What I did: sustained practice; Level 5 coaching qualification; CPD in systemic, wellbeing, transitions. Challenging but supportive, a safe non-judgemental space.
  3. Outcome: mindset shifts, returns from burnout, promotions. "David gave me the tools and thought process to change my life." Shanda is independent of the council, the strongest external witness.
  4. KSBs: K4.2 / S4.2 Coaching. Strong Pass.
Full version
Situation
David has been a volunteer coach with the West Midlands Employers Public Sector Coaching Pool for over five years, dedicating approximately 25 hours per year to coaching employees across member organisations. Shanda Reid coordinates the coaching pool and reviewed client evaluations.
What I did
I maintained a sustained coaching practice with a Level 5 coaching qualification, completing CPD in systemic coaching, wellbeing, and transitions. My approach across all clients is consistently described as challenging but supportive: I encourage people to step outside their comfort zones while maintaining a safe, non-judgemental space.
Outcome
Client outcomes reviewed by Shanda Reid include: fundamental mindset shifts, returns to work from burnout, and promotions. One client's direct evaluation: "David has given me the tools and thought process to change my life." Shanda Reid is the strongest external witness in the portfolio because her evidence is independent of Shropshire Council and based on sustained multi-year practice.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"David has given me the tools and thought process to change my life." (Coaching client, reviewed by Shanda Reid, West Midlands Employers)
"His approach is consistently described as challenging but supportive. Clients highlight how he encourages them to step outside their comfort zones while maintaining a safe, non-judgemental space." (Shanda Reid)
K4.2 S4.2 B4.2 B4.3
›
Coaching in a Work Context: Empowering Ownership Strong Pass K4.2 / S4.2 Coaching embedded in day-to-day work

& coaching in a work context: empowering?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Claire Allen needed sickness-absence process maps. I was not her manager; not a formal coaching engagement.
  2. What I did: applied coaching within the work itself. Did not produce the maps for her; supported her to own the solution; constructively challenged and prompted reflection.
  3. Outcome: Claire: "empowered me to take ownership... develop solutions that worked in practice." Coaching embedded in how I work, not just formal sessions.
  4. KSBs: K4.2 / S4.2 Coaching in day-to-day. Strong Pass.
Full version
Situation
Claire Allen needed to develop process maps documenting short- and long-term sickness absence procedures. David was not Claire's manager and this was not a formal coaching engagement. It was a work project with a practical output.
What I did
I applied coaching and mentoring techniques within the context of the work itself. Rather than producing the process maps for Claire, I supported her to develop solutions that she owned. I constructively challenged existing approaches and encouraged her to reflect on alternative methods.
Outcome
Claire Allen: "His approach empowered me to take ownership of the process and develop solutions that worked in practice." She also noted: "Confident in constructively challenging existing approaches, encouraging me to reflect on alternative methods." This shows coaching is not limited to formal coaching sessions. It is embedded in the way David works with colleagues.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"His approach empowered me to take ownership of the process and develop solutions that worked in practice." (Claire Allen, Witness Testimony)
K4.2 S4.2 S7.3 S6.1
›
Governance Gap: Identified, Owned, Resolved Strong Pass B4.1 / B4.2 Professional integrity

& governance gap: identified, owned, resolved?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Phase 2 started without the governance that should have preceded launch. A risk and an integrity question.
  2. What I did: documented it openly as Issue I_002, owned it rather than deflecting, set a 28 May deadline, resolved it by producing RAID, ToR, POAP, Success Outcome.
  3. Outcome: I_002 resolved 28 May; that documentation became the project foundation. Documenting openly rather than minimising is the integrity evidence.
  4. KSBs: B4.1 / B4.2 Professional integrity. Strong Pass.
Full version
Situation
Phase 2 commenced without the governance structures that should have been in place before launch. This was a project risk and a professional integrity question: acknowledge it or minimise it.
What I did
I documented the governance gap openly as Issue I_002 in the RAID log: "Phase 2 commenced without governance structures." I owned the issue rather than attributing it elsewhere, set a resolution deadline of 28 May 2026, and resolved it by that date through producing the RAID log, Terms of Reference, POAP, and Success Outcome Statement.
Outcome
Issue I_002 status: Resolved, 28 May 2026. The governance documentation produced to resolve the issue became the foundation for the entire Phase 2 project. The willingness to document a problem openly rather than minimise it is itself evidence of professional integrity at B4.1 and B4.2.
What this showed me was that ambiguity managed transparently is not a weakness. Ambiguity concealed is.
"Operated as a role model, consistently demonstrating fairness, openness, and integrity." (Sunanda Bailey, Witness Testimony)
B4.1 B4.2 B3.2 RAID I_002
›
Multi-Agency Data Mapping: Partners Changed Their Practices Strong Pass K6.1 / S6.1 Stakeholder management

& multi-agency data mapping: partners changed their?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Community and Family Hub data mapping across health, social care, public health, libraries, voluntary sector.
  2. What I did: structured stakeholder interviews beyond the brief; raised things partners had not considered about their own data and formats.
  3. Outcome: Saywell: partners reviewing what data they collect and the formats they use. Behaviour change beyond the original brief.
  4. KSBs: K6.1 / S6.1 Stakeholder management. Strong Pass.
Full version
Situation
The Community and Family Hub programme required a data mapping exercise across internal and external partners to understand the breadth of prevention contacts and data held across different systems. Partners spanned health, social care, public health, libraries, and the voluntary sector.
What I did
I conducted structured stakeholder interviews across the multi-agency partnership, asking questions that went beyond the brief. I raised elements that partners had not previously considered about their own data collection and the formats they used.
Outcome
Charlotte Saywell, Programme Manager in the PMO: "Partners who commented that David had raised elements they had not previously considered. As a result, several partners indicated they were reviewing what data they collect and the formats they use." The engagement produced measurable behaviour change beyond the scope of the original brief.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"Partners who commented that David had raised elements they had not previously considered. As a result, several partners indicated they were reviewing what data they collect and the formats they use." (Charlotte Saywell, Witness Testimony)
K6.1 S6.1 K6.2 S7.2
›
Psychological Safety: People Feel Safe to Disagree Strong Pass B2.1 / K7.1 Open and approachable

& psychological safety: people feel safe to?

Say this (4 points)

  1. Situation: Emily Goodhead has worked with me across meetings, workshops, 1:1s, training. Example: the Carbon Literacy course.
  2. What I did: genuine interest in why, not just how. Used questions to deepen the group understanding rather than asserting conclusions.
  3. Outcome: Emily: "always felt safe and able to share my perspective." Noted my interest in "why", and that I approached her for PM guidance (self-directed learning).
  4. KSBs: B2.1 / K7.1 Open and approachable. Strong Pass.
Full version
Situation
Emily Goodhead has worked with David across multiple settings: meetings, workshops, 1:1s, and training courses. A specific example is the Carbon Literacy training course where David's questioning helped the team gain perspective on a complex topic.
What I did
I consistently demonstrate a genuine interest in understanding why, not just how. In the Carbon Literacy session, I used questions to deepen the group's understanding rather than asserting conclusions. I create the conditions for others to share their perspective honestly.
Outcome
Emily Goodhead: "I have always felt safe and able to share my perspective when working with David." Emily also noted: "David has always been keen to understand more than just how to do something. He has a vested interest in why." She observed that David proactively approached her for guidance on project management, modelling self-directed learning behaviour.
What this showed me was that the real test of whether the work was sound is whether the outcomes outlast your involvement.
"I have always felt safe and able to share my perspective when working with David." (Emily Goodhead, Witness Testimony)
"David has always been keen to understand more than just how to do something. He has a vested interest in why." (Emily Goodhead)
B2.1 K7.1 S7.3 S8.1