Proof - Use of Theories

Candidate: David Agyei. Assessment: 18 June 2026, 14:00. AM2 Q&A AM1 Professional Discussion

& how to use this page?
Section 1 — Theory Map: which theory fits the question; then Detail Cards: full jog per theory.
Section 2 — Eight Dangerous Questions: Pass answer shown; read the Distinction answer; say it out loud.
Section 3 — Pass to Distinction: verbal behaviours; read before Wednesday.

› & which theory fits this question? — Theory Map A–Z by decision area

& which theory fits this question? Name it. Say where you used it. Evaluate it — the evaluation is the distinction move.

Decision Area	Theory / Framework to Name	Where it appears	Assessment
Change management	Lewin's unfreeze/change/refreeze model to diagnose Phase 1 failure; Kotter's "creating urgency" for Phase 2 coalition building	Proposal Section 9 Three recommendations: confirm a named strategic owner for SWANN; proceed with the electronic referral form as the unconditional first delivery; build the measurement framework alongside the form, not after it. Closing: "Early-intervention services need the same governance rigour as any other commissioned service. SWANN got through Phase 1 and into Phase 2 without a risk register, success measures or a strategic owner in place. Getting those structures built retrospectively under time pressure was possible this time. It should not need to happen that way again." ; Root Cause analysis	AM1 + AM2
Coaching practice	GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will); non-directive, person-centred approach; systemic coaching CPD	Coaching Testimonials 2025 West Midlands Employers Coaching and Mentoring Pool. 15 coachees over five-plus years, with quantified outcomes including six promotions and two returns from burnout. Christine Bromley, NHS: "Two weeks after the sessions ended, I succeeded in achieving a promotion at work, and the timing of this coaching journey was instrumental." Elaine Betts, Walsall Council (Chartered MCIPD, CMgr MCMI): "The coaching style and approach provided by David exceeded my expectations. He provided a safe supportive environment to explore possibilities and embrace new opportunities." Sarah Stevens, Shropshire Council: "Prior to awareness coaching, work had become overwhelming. It has transformed all areas of my life. I am able to chair meetings more effectively and reach decisions in a timely manner." ; West Midlands Coaching Pool; ELD K4.2, S4.2	AM1
Financial analysis	Proxy costing with transparent assumption labelling; ADASS/PSSRU as published public sector benchmarks	Cost Avoidance v0.1; Proposal Section 6 "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."	AM2
Leadership approach	Situational Leadership (Hersey and Blanchard): directing vs coaching based on stakeholder readiness	Jim Ford engagement; provider management; coaching testimonials; ELD K4.1	AM1 + AM2
Options appraisal	Cost-benefit analysis with do-nothing as explicit baseline (Green Book principle)	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. : three alternatives evaluated and rejected	AM2
Project management	Agile/Scrum: empirical process control (inspect and adapt, sprint cadence)	Slide 3 decision; Proposal Section 3; 12-week sprint plan	AM2
Stakeholder management	Mendelow's Power/Interest Matrix	FFP stakeholder mapping; SWANN partner engagement; ELD K6.1	AM1 + AM2

› & what's the full jog per theory? — Detail Cards A–Z by framework name

& what's in each card? Why you chose it · limitation (say this for Distinction) · numbered points to say out loud.

2. Agile/Scrum: Empirical Process Control

Decision area: Project management. Used in: SWANN Phase 2 delivery design.

& say this out loud

& why sprint not waterfall?

Say this (2 points)

Phase 1 waterfall failure: stakeholder confidence needed visible, incremental delivery
Adapted, not pure: Scrum principles fitted to council procurement cycles — could not control dependencies outside the team

Full version

Why you chose it

Phase 1 used a linear, waterfall approach.
Requirements changed partway through and the project could not adapt. Stakeholder confidence in the PMO's delivery ability was affected. Agile's inspect-and-adapt cadence allowed SWANN Phase 2 to deliver visible, incremental outputs at each sprint, which maintained stakeholder confidence during the council's financial emergency. Short sprint cycles also meant that if requirements changed again, the cost of change was contained.

How you used it

12-week sprint framework with defined deliverables per sprint.
Now/Next/Later roadmap a visual tool to communicate progress and intent without committing to a locked-in Gantt.
Sprint reviews incremental progress to the SWANN partnership at each monthly meeting.
Requirements workshop (2 June): user stories confirmed collaboratively, not imposed.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

Public sector procurement and governance cycles do not naturally align with sprint cadence.
The SWANN portal required engagement with the council's digital team, which operates on its own change management process and approval timeline. I had to adapt rather than implement pure Scrum: the sprint framework was used for planning and visibility, but I could not control the velocity of dependencies sitting outside my team. The Agile literature assumes team authority that did not exist in a cross-functional, multi-agency context.

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis with Do-Nothing Baseline

Decision area: Options appraisal. Used in: Proposal Section 8.

& say this out loud

& why do-nothing baseline?

Say this (2 points)

Green Book principle: recommendation justified against alternatives, not presented as the only option
Proportionate, not exhaustive: right level of appraisal for Phase 2 scale — acknowledged openly, not concealed

What this showed me was that framing against rejected alternatives changes how a commissioner hears the recommendation — justified choice, not an asserted one.

Full version

Why you chose it

Green Book best practice requires genuine options comparison including a do-nothing baseline.
Without a do-nothing option, a recommendation reads as a foregone conclusion rather than a justified choice. Including three genuine alternatives and evaluating each against explicit criteria makes the recommendation defensible under scrutiny from commissioners, senior leaders, or an assessor.

How you used it

Option 0: do nothing. Baseline against which all other options are measured.
Option 1: standalone referral form. Lower cost, lower functionality. Rejected on data tracking grounds.
Option 2: external system integration. Higher capability, higher risk. Rejected on procurement timeline and dependency grounds.
Option 3 (recommended): Dynamics 365 portal. Builds on existing council infrastructure. Preserves data tracking integrity. Proportionate to Phase 2 scope.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

The options appraisal is based on cost, risk, and strategic alignment.
It does not include a full sensitivity analysis of what happens if the Dynamics 365 portal takes longer than anticipated to build, which is a real risk given the council's digital team's existing workload. A more rigorous Green Book appraisal would have weighted each option against a wider range of criteria and included a risk-adjusted cost estimate. I made a pragmatic judgment that this level of analysis was proportionate to a Phase 2 project at this scale, but I recognise it is not the same as a full HMT-level options appraisal.

7. GROW Model and Non-Directive Coaching

Decision area: Coaching practice. Used in: West Midlands Coaching Pool; Claire Allen sickness absence project; day-to-day team coaching.

& say this out loud

& GROW: what's the real skill?

Say this (2 points)

Core principle: non-directive — the coachee owns the solution; GROW provides structure, not direction
Real skill: knowing when to shift mode — the framework doesn't make that call; readiness does

What this showed me was that the 15 coachees over five years are the legacy of the approach. The outcomes were theirs. My role was to hold the space.

Full version

Why you chose it

A non-directive, person-centred approach enables the coachee to discover their own solutions rather than receiving direction.
This is both more sustainable (the coachee owns the outcome) and more appropriate in coaching relationships where the coach is not the line manager and does not have the full context of the coachee's situation. GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) provides a structured conversation framework that keeps the session purposeful without prescribing the answer.

How you used it

15 coachees via the West Midlands Public Sector Coaching Pool over 5+ years.
Outcomes: 2 returned to work following burnout; 6 received promotions. All referenced in client evaluations seen by Shanda Reid.
Claire Allen: GROW principles applied within an operational work context (sickness absence process mapping) rather than a formal coaching session. Coaching embedded in practice, not just designated sessions.
CPD: systemic coaching, wellbeing coaching, and career transitions modules completed. Demonstrated by ongoing learning, not just initial qualification.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

Non-directive coaching works when the coachee has sufficient experience and self-awareness to generate their own solutions with facilitated reflection.
In cases where a coachee is new to a role or facing a crisis, a purely non-directive approach can feel unsupportive. I have had to shift between non-directive coaching and more directive mentoring based on readiness. Shanda Reid's coachees who returned from burnout required a more scaffolded approach early in the process before non-directive techniques became productive. Knowing when to shift mode is the skill; the framework is the starting point.

6. Lewin and Kotter: Change Management Models

Decision area: Understanding Phase 1 failure and designing Phase 2. Used in: Proposal Section 9; Root Cause analysis.

& say this out loud

& why Lewin and Kotter together?

Say this (3 points)

Lewin diagnosis: technology changed; working practices never unfrozen — that is why Phase 1 failed
Phase 2 corrects the sequence: requirements workshop first; unfreeze before any build begins
Kotter coalition: partnership, Director, Commissioner engaged before technical work — urgency built, not assumed

What this showed me was that the governance structures built for this project — POAP, RAID log, weekly cadence — will outlive the EPA period. That is the real test: whether the team can continue without you.

Full version

Why you chose it

The proposal's closing observation states: "governance structures built retrospectively under pressure; should not happen again." This is a systemic diagnosis of why Phase 1 failed.
Lewin's unfreeze/change/refreeze model provides the explanatory framework: Phase 1 changed the technology (the "change" stage) without ever completing the "unfreeze" stage. Stakeholder buy-in was assumed rather than built. Kotter's model of building a guiding coalition and creating visible short-term wins informed the Phase 2 design.

How you used it

Lewin: Phase 1 diagnosis. Technology was changed but working practices and professional referrer buy-in were never unfrozen first. Phase 2 opens with a requirements workshop and partnership presentation precisely to unfreeze before building.
Kotter step 1 (create urgency): financial case (£390k cost avoidance) presented to create the "burning platform" for action.
Kotter step 3 (build a guiding coalition): SWANN partnership, Director, AD, Lisa Middleton as Commissioner all engaged before any technical build began.
Kotter step 6 (generate short-term wins): sprint framework designed to deliver visible outputs at each stage, not a single final deliverable.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

Both Lewin and Kotter assume a degree of organisational control that a project lead without line authority does not have.
I could create urgency and build a coalition but I could not unfreeze the organisation's working practices unilaterally. Professional referrer resistance from Jim Ford required individual relational work that sits outside both models. Real change in a multi-agency, cross-boundary context is messier than either framework suggests. I used them as diagnostic lenses rather than prescriptive processes.

1. Mendelow's Power/Interest Matrix

Decision area: Stakeholder management. Used in: FFP As-Is Meetings project and SWANN Phase 2.

& say this out loud

& Mendelow: what does it miss?

Say this (2 points)

Structured the approach: matrix gave a basis for allocating engagement effort across Director Shaw, Jim Ford, operational staff
Limitation live: power and interest miss emotional investment — Ford needed trust-building the matrix could not prescribe

Full version

Why you chose it

The FFP project involved stakeholders ranging from a Director of Children's Services down to operational staff, with no single reporting line connecting them.
Mendelow gave a structured basis for deciding how to allocate engagement effort and what level of information each stakeholder needed. Director Shaw required detailed briefing; operational staff required simple takeaways from the analysis.

How you used it

Director David Shaw (high power, high interest): managed closely; briefed with full report and infographic; asked for Director-level commitment on meeting review.
AD Natasha Moody (high power, developing interest): kept satisfied; responded to her anomaly query constructively before wider release.
HWBB / Louisa Jones (medium power, high interest): kept informed; methodology shared for cross-organisational adoption.
Operational staff (lower power, high interest locally): minimal data, clear summary output; anonymised below Service Manager level to protect trust.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

Mendelow maps power and interest but does not capture emotional investment in the status quo.
Jim Ford's concern about Phase 1 was not a matter of low power or low interest. It was a matter of prior experience and professional reputation. I had to supplement the matrix with trust-building conversations before presenting the Phase 2 design, because the matrix alone would have classified him incorrectly and triggered a transactional engagement that would not have worked.

3. Proxy Costing with Transparent Assumption Labelling

Decision area: Financial analysis. Used in: Cost Avoidance Framework v0.1.

& say this out loud

& why proxy costs, and why is that defensible?

Say this (3 points)

No internal data: ADASS/PSSRU are the published public sector standard — every assumption labelled [PROXY], not hidden
£390k is illustrative: not a forecast; a demonstration of what becomes measurable once Phase 2 is live
Measurement framework is Rec 3: it replaces proxies with actuals — that is why it matters as much as the portal

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.

Full version

Why you chose it

No internal unit cost data existed for escalations from early help to statutory social care within Shropshire Council.
ADASS (Association of Directors of Adult Social Services) and PSSRU (Personal Social Services Research Unit) produce published, peer-reviewed unit cost benchmarks used by HMT-approved analysts across the public sector. Using them as proxies gave the financial case a credible and replicable basis without waiting for internal data that did not exist.

How you used it

All proxy assumptions labelled [ASSUMPTION: PROXY] in the document. Not hidden.
Three scenarios modelled: 5%, 10%, 20% reduction in escalations.
£390k illustrative figure based on the 20% reduction scenario. Not presented as a financial commitment.
Five outstanding questions for Lisa: total contract value, performance metrics, referral volume targets, unit cost data, Phase 1 outcomes data.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

The £390k figure is illustrative only.
ADASS/PSSRU proxies are national averages; Shropshire unit costs may be higher or lower depending on contract structures I do not yet have access to. The point of Phase 2 is precisely to build the data infrastructure that replaces these proxies with actuals. The financial case is not a forecast; it is a demonstration of what becomes possible once the measurement framework exists. That is why Recommendation 3 (building the measurement framework in parallel) is as important as the portal build itself.

4. Situational Leadership (Hersey and Blanchard)

Decision area: Leadership approach. Used across: SWANN, FFP, coaching practice.

& say this out loud

& situational leadership: how did you actually apply it?

Say this (3 points)

Directing — Jim Ford: rationale first; he had seen Phase 1 fail and needed clarity before engagement
Delegating — Charlotte Saywell: coordinated 73 staff across FFP data collection with minimal oversight once briefed
No line authority: influence substituted for direction — Mendelow and trust-building filled the gap the model assumes away

The limitation of that approach was that it assumes you can read readiness accurately on first contact. With Jim Ford I misjudged his initial readiness — he needed more directing before he was ready to engage as a partner.

Full version

Why you chose it

Different stakeholders had different readiness levels for change.
Jim Ford (experienced, resistant) needed a different approach to Charlotte Saywell (capable, willing). Applying the same leadership style to every participant would have been counterproductive. Situational leadership gave a structured basis for adjusting approach deliberately rather than reactively.

How you used it

Directing: Jim Ford, who had seen Phase 1 fail and needed clear rationale before engagement, not open-ended consultation.
Coaching: providers whose systems were technically incompatible with the original design. Worked through options with them rather than imposing a solution.
Delegating: Charlotte Saywell, who coordinated the FFP data collection across 73 staff with minimal oversight once briefed.
Supporting: Shanda Reid's coachees, where scaffolding was provided but direction was withheld to build ownership.

Limitation (say this for Distinction)

Situational leadership assumes the leader can accurately assess readiness and has sufficient authority to adjust their style accordingly.
In a cross-functional project without line authority over most participants, applying situational leadership required influence rather than direction. I could not instruct Jim Ford; I had to earn his engagement. The model is helpful for diagnosing what approach is needed but does not tell you how to execute that approach when you have no formal authority. That gap is where the trust-building work and Mendelow's stakeholder analysis became necessary supplements.

› & which questions will cost marks? — Eight Dangerous Questions A–Z by question topic

& which questions cost marks at Pass? Eight below. Read the Distinction answer. Say it out loud. Evidence anchor: which file to open if needed.

Question 8

"How did you decide to deprioritise the Children's EHM Mapping workstream and what was the cost of that decision?"

AM2 Q&A

& why deprioritise EHM Mapping and what was the cost?

Say this (6 points)

Deliberate: resource allocation decision — not reactive
Urgency: SWANN linked to financial recovery mandate; EHM valuable but not time-critical
Dependency: SWANN active partnership and commitments; EHM no external accountability
Reversibility: EHM resumable after Phase 2; mid-sprint SWANN pause breaks cadence and confidence
Cost: EHM evidence incomplete — limits broader As-Is picture; stated explicitly in presentation
Mitigation: FFP meetings-mapping methodology transferable to EHM with briefing

The limitation of that approach was that I made the right call but did not log the rationale in the RAID log at the time. A deprioritisation of that scale should have been a formal record, not a conversation.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"I made a pragmatic decision to focus on SWANN Phase 2 given the capacity constraints and EPA deadline."

Distinction-level answer

"The deprioritisation was a deliberate resource allocation decision, not a reactive one.
At the point where SWANN Phase 2 and the EHM Mapping workstream were competing for the same capacity, I assessed them against three criteria: strategic urgency (SWANN Phase 2 was directly linked to the financial recovery mandate; EHM Mapping was valuable but not time-critical), stakeholder dependency (SWANN had an active partnership with scheduled meetings and commitments; EHM Mapping had no external accountability structure), and reversibility (EHM Mapping could be picked up after Phase 2 without significant rework; pausing SWANN mid-sprint would have broken the cadence and damaged stakeholder confidence). The cost of deprioritisation is that EHM Mapping evidence remains incomplete, which limits the As-Is picture across the broader system. I was explicit about this in the presentation. The risk I accepted is that EHM Mapping may become urgent before I have capacity to return to it. The mitigation is that the As-Is Meetings Mapping methodology I developed for FFP is transferable and could be applied by another team member to EHM with appropriate briefing."

Evidence anchor

Presentation Slide 2 (managing self and workstream prioritisation); ELD B3.3, K5.1; SWANN updates.

Question 1

"How does your project connect to Shropshire Council's wider strategic priorities?"

AM2 Q&A

& how does SWANN connect to council strategic priorities?

Say this (5 points)

Context: £121m financial emergency 2024; MHCLG improvement notice; external scrutiny
Pressure: largest children's services cost — early help escalating to statutory care
Phase 2: builds data infrastructure to measure cost avoidance on escalations
£390k: illustrative not committed — demonstrates what becomes measurable post-Phase 2
Link: explicit in proposal strategic context; Shropshire Plan 2022–25; evidence cannot yet be generated

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"The SWANN Phase 2 project supports the council's early intervention agenda and helps reduce escalations to statutory services."

Distinction-level answer

"Shropshire Council is managing a £121 million financial emergency declared in 2024.
The MHCLG has issued an improvement notice and the council faces external scrutiny. The single largest cost pressure in children's services is escalation from early help to statutory social care. SWANN Phase 2 directly addresses that pressure by building the data infrastructure needed to measure cost avoidance on escalations. Phase 1 failed to create that infrastructure. The £390k illustrative saving figure is not a financial commitment; it is a demonstration of what becomes measurable once Phase 2 is complete. The connection to the Shropshire Plan 2022 to 2025 outcomes framework is explicit in the proposal's strategic context section. This project exists because the financial recovery mandate requires evidence-based early intervention investment, and that evidence currently cannot be generated."

Evidence anchor

Proposal Section 1 (strategic context); Cost Avoidance v0.1; ELD Golden Thread statement; ELD K1.3, S4.1.

Question 6

"Tell me about a time you had to challenge upwards, and what happened as a result."

AM1 Professional Discussion

& when did you challenge upwards and what happened?

Say this (6 points)

Example: FFP As-Is Meetings Mapping — £770k–£851k annual cost; 12.5–14 FTE equivalent
Audience: Director Shaw, AD Moody, PM Saywell — their own meeting behaviour exposed
Approach: system-level analysis; anonymised below SM level; structural causes not individuals
Outcome: Director reviewing own attendance; HWBB adopting methodology cross-organisationally
Authority: Director-level behavioural commitment — no line authority over his diary
Learning: could have softened — chose complete information over comfort

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"I presented findings to senior stakeholders and they responded positively."

Distinction-level answer

"The clearest example is the

FFP Comms Update (As-Is Meetings Mapping)

Charlotte Saywell, Programme Manager: "Great piece of work David. It truly identifies the issues that we suspected. Definitely one to add to the list of good pieces of work that the PMO have completed."

Natasha Moody, relaying the Director's reaction: "David Shaw has been celebrating the 'as is' mapping as it is exposing the volume of meetings and the HWBB are considering joining up forces."

David Shaw, Director of Children's Services: "Really clear next steps/quick wins to give people permission to do things differently. I'm also going to reflect again on the meetings I attend and whether they are the best way to achieve the intended aim."

Outcome: four recommendations raised to CLT; Health and Wellbeing Board considering collaboration; the Director committed to reviewing his own meeting attendance. Achieved without line authority over any of those involved.

project. I identified £770k to £851k in annual meeting costs across Children's Services, equivalent to 12.5 to 14 full-time equivalent social workers. I presented those findings to the Director of Children's Services, David Shaw, alongside his Assistant Director Natasha Moody and Programme Manager Charlotte Saywell. Presenting sensitive capacity and cost data about senior leaders' own meeting behaviour to the Director who attends those meetings is an inherently uncomfortable position for someone at my grade. I managed it by framing the findings as a system-level analysis, anonymising data below Service Manager level, and focusing on the structural causes rather than individual behaviour. Director Shaw's response was that he was going to review his own meeting attendance and whether those meetings were the best way to achieve their intended aim. That is a Director-level behavioural commitment secured without any formal authority over his diary. The HWBB also adopted the methodology cross-organisationally. Charlotte Saywell described it as one of the PMO's strongest pieces of work. The reflection: I could have softened the findings to avoid the conversation. I did not. That was a deliberate choice grounded in the same principle as the transparent cost avoidance model: presenting complete information, even when it is uncomfortable, is more professional than managing the discomfort by omitting it."

Evidence anchor

Evidence 9 (FFP Comms Update email chain); ELD K6.1, S6.1, B1.3, B4.2; Charlotte Saywell testimony.

Question 5

"There were 31 outstanding referrals with no service level agreement as of your submission. What is happening to those people and what decisions did you make about escalation?"

AM2 Q&A

& what is happening to those 31 outstanding referrals?

Say this (6 points)

Risk: 31 flagged 27 May partnership meeting; RAID logged
Status: 2 June — 13 remain SH Mental Health; encryption issue; new Swan mailbox resolved
SLA gap: inherited Phase 1 governance gap; confirmed Kate and Jim 2 June
Escalation: partnership visibility — not silent operational management
Root cause: inconsistent channels, no tracking — portal makes response times measurable
Interim: Kate decrypting and forwarding; provider CSCDuty confirmations; address workaround pending form fix

What this showed me was that surfacing a live risk in a partnership meeting, even when I was not the cause, was faster than managing it quietly. The 31 became 13 in eight days because it was visible.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"The 31 referrals are being managed and Phase 2 will address the SLA gap once the portal is built."

Distinction-level answer

"The 31 outstanding referrals represent a live operational risk that I flagged at the 27 May SWANN partnership meeting and documented in the RAID log.
As of 2 June 2026, 13 referrals remained outstanding for Shropshire Mental Health, pending decryption and forwarding by Kate Hobbs; the root cause was a mailbox encryption issue that blocked Customer Services from accessing referrals, now resolved via a new Swan mailbox. The Live Well Shropshire referrals had been cleared. The absence of an SLA is a governance gap inherited from Phase 1, confirmed by both Kate and Jim at the 2 June meeting. My decision on escalation was to bring this explicitly to the partnership rather than manage it operationally without visibility, because these are families who have already sought support once and a second failure to respond would have both a human cost and a reputational risk for the council. The Phase 2 digital portal directly addresses the root cause: referrals currently arrive through inconsistent channels with no tracking mechanism. Once the portal is live, response times become measurable and accountable. The interim position is: Kate Hobbs unencrypting and forwarding outstanding cases; providers sending confirmation emails to the CSCDuty mailbox; advisors including addresses in the further information field as a workaround pending a form fix."

Evidence anchor

SWANN updates 3 June file; RAID log; Success Outcomes v0.1; ELD B1.3.

Before Wednesday: 10 June confirmed these 13 were not dependent on Customer Services (referrals forwarded; Shropshire Mental Health responding to residents). Call Kate Hobbs on 17 June to confirm whether all 13 are now resolved and note the final count for your opening remarks on 18 June.

Question 2

"What is the basis for your £390,000 cost avoidance figure and how confident are you in it?"

AM2 Q&A

& what is the basis for £390k and how confident are you?

Say this (6 points)

Frame: explicitly illustrative; ADASS/PSSRU standard proxies; every assumption labelled [PROXY]
Why proxies: no internal unit cost data — that is what Phase 2 infrastructure solves
Chain: 200 referrals × 20% deflection = 40 escalations; £30k assessment + £360k care = £390k total
Outstanding: five questions to Lisa Middleton — none answered by assessment date
23 June: meeting scheduled to replace proxies with actuals
Method: transparent labelled proxy beats unreferenced figure that cannot be challenged

The limitation of that approach was that the proxy model demonstrates the case for Phase 2 but cannot prove it. Needing the infrastructure before you can evidence the need for it — the central governance challenge of early intervention work.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"It is an estimate based on national benchmarks and I acknowledge it needs to be confirmed with actual data."

Distinction-level answer

"The figure is explicitly illustrative.
It uses ADASS and PSSRU unit cost benchmarks, which are the standard published sources for social care proxy costing in the UK. Every assumption in the model is labelled [ASSUMPTION: PROXY] rather than presented as confirmed fact. The reason I proceeded with proxies is that internal unit cost data does not exist within Shropshire Council's current recording systems. That is part of the problem Phase 2 is designed to solve. Five specific questions have been sent to Lisa Middleton for confirmation: total contract value, performance metrics, referral volume targets, unit cost data, and Phase 1 outcomes data. The illustrative calculation in the submitted presentation runs as follows: 200 referrals per year once the electronic form is live (estimated), multiplied by a 20% deflection rate (NHS England social prescribing evidence, lower end), gives 40 escalations avoided. 40 x £750 assessment cost = £30,000 assessment avoidance; 40 x 60% progression to care packages (NHS Digital eligible rate) = 24 care packages avoided x £15,000 per year (ADASS conservative figure) = £360,000 care package avoidance. Total: £390,000. All inputs labelled as estimates or proxies in the presentation. None of the five questions have been answered as of the assessment date; a meeting with Lisa Middleton is scheduled for 23 June to work through them. The proxy model therefore stands as the basis for the cost avoidance figure on 18 June. The intellectual design of the model is sound; the figures will be replaced with actuals once Phase 2's measurement framework is operational. This transparency is itself a methodological choice: I would rather present a clearly labelled proxy than an unreferenced figure that cannot be reproduced or challenged."

Evidence anchor

Cost Avoidance v0.1 (Evidence: supporting evidence folder); Proposal Section 6; ELD K1.3, B4.2.

Status as of 15 June: Meeting with Lisa scheduled for 23 June (post-EPA). None of the five questions answered as of the assessment. Be ready to state this clearly: the proxy model is the basis for the figure on 18 June; the meeting on 23 June is the next step to replace proxies with actuals.

Question 7

"What would you do differently if you were starting Phase 2 again?"

AM2 Q&A

& what would you do differently starting Phase 2 again?

Say this (4 points)

Finance: financial confirmation milestones from week one — not discovery at modelling stage
Owner: strategic owner escalation trigger when ToR target date missed
Phase 1: formal post-implementation review — shared failure narrative for Phase 2 coalition
Gap type: governance scaffolding built retrospectively; project management was sound

What this showed me was that the gaps I would change are all governance gaps — financial milestones, strategic owner escalation, Phase 1 post-implementation review. The project management was sound; the governance scaffolding was built retrospectively.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"I would have confirmed the strategic owner earlier and made sure the financial data was in place before submission."

Distinction-level answer

"Three things.
First, I would have built structured financial confirmation milestones into the project plan from week one rather than discovering at the point of cost avoidance modelling that the five key data points from the commissioner had not been collected. I underestimated how long organisational data requests take when the person being asked has competing priorities and no formal obligation to respond to your timeline. Second, I would have escalated the strategic owner confirmation earlier. I built a target date into the ToR but did not build a governance escalation trigger if that date was missed. That is a planning gap, not just an execution gap. Third, I would have been more deliberate about documenting the learning from Phase 1 formally at the outset. The root cause analysis exists but was produced informally. A formal post-implementation review of Phase 1, signed off by the SWANN partnership, would have created a shared narrative about failure that would have made it easier to build the Phase 2 coalition. The current situation is that Phase 1's failures are understood by me but not formally acknowledged by the organisation."

Evidence anchor

Cost Avoidance v0.1 (five outstanding questions); SWANN ToR (TBC field); Root Cause analysis; ELD S8.1, K8.1.

Question 4

"Which management models or theories informed your approach to this project, and where specifically did you apply them?"

AM1 + AM2

& which models informed your approach and where?

Say this (6 points)

Mendelow: stakeholder engagement across diverse landscape — no single reporting line
Agile/Scrum: inspect and adapt after Phase 1 waterfall failure showed requirements would change
Situational leadership: directing vs coaching by stakeholder readiness
Lewin: Phase 1 failed — technology changed; working practices and buy-in never unfrozen
Green Book: cost-benefit with do-nothing baseline for options appraisal
Limit: combined frameworks deliberately — none sufficient alone in multi-agency context

What this showed me was that the frameworks were most useful as diagnostic lenses — no single model does all three jobs.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"I used stakeholder management techniques and project management tools such as RAID logs and sprint planning."

Distinction-level answer

"I drew on several frameworks deliberately.
For stakeholder management I used Mendelow's power/interest matrix, which structured my engagement decisions across a diverse stakeholder landscape with no single reporting line. For project management I applied agile sprint principles from the Scrum framework, specifically the empirical process control concept of inspect and adapt, which I chose because Phase 1's waterfall failure showed that requirements would change. For leadership I applied situational leadership, adjusting between directing and coaching depending on each stakeholder's readiness. For the change management diagnosis I used Lewin's unfreeze/change/refreeze model, which explains why Phase 1 failed: the technology changed but the working practices and stakeholder buy-in were never unfrozen first. For the options appraisal I used cost-benefit analysis with a do-nothing baseline, consistent with HMT Green Book principles. I did not apply these models in isolation or as textbook prescriptions. Each one had limitations in a multi-agency public sector context, and I combined them rather than relying on any single framework."

Evidence anchor

ELD Theory Map table (Quick Reference section); Proposal Sections 3, 6, 8, 9; all Group 1 and Group 2 KSBs.

Question 3

"Your Terms of Reference show the Strategic Owner as TBC with a target confirmation date of 30 May 2026. Who is the strategic owner and when was it confirmed?"

AM2 Q&A

& who is the strategic owner and why still TBC?

Say this (4 points)

Deliberate: governance decision not oversight; RAID risk with 30 May target date
Accountability: Lisa Middleton holds effective commissioner accountability throughout
Lesson: Phase 1 showed gaps unresolved early become blockers later
Mitigation: 23 June meeting to formalise; transparent about unsettled — not concealed

What this showed me was that ambiguity managed transparently is not a weakness. Ambiguity concealed is.

Full version

Pass-level answer (do not stop here)

"The strategic owner was listed as TBC at the point of the ToR and remains formally TBC as of the assessment date."

Distinction-level answer

"The TBC reflects a deliberate governance decision rather than an oversight.
At the time the ToR was drafted, two senior leaders were in scope for the role and the final confirmation was pending a meeting on 23 June 2026. The strategic owner role remains formally TBC as of the assessment date, documented as a live RAID risk with a target date of 30 May. Lisa Middleton holds effective senior accountability as Commissioning Officer; the naming gap is a governance design issue, not an accountability vacuum. The lesson from Phase 1 is precisely that governance gaps left unresolved early become blockers later. I flagged this as a live risk in the RAID log and built a target confirmation date into the ToR rather than leaving it as an open item. If the strategic owner question is still being resolved, the mitigation is that Lisa Middleton holds effective senior accountability as Commissioning Officer; a follow-up meeting is scheduled for 23 June to formalise the confirmation and close the RAID risk. This reflects the same principle as the financial analysis: being transparent about what is not yet confirmed is more defensible than presenting incomplete information as settled."

Evidence anchor

SWANN SPoR ToR v1.0; RAID log (8 risks, 2 issues); ELD B1.3, B4.2.

Before Wednesday: Strategic owner is still formally TBC as of 15 June. Your mitigation narrative is set: RAID-logged risk, Lisa Middleton holds effective senior accountability as Commissioning Officer, follow-up meeting on 23 June. Be ready to state this clearly and without apology if asked.

› Five Distinction Indicators

& What were the rejected project alternatives?

Say this (3 points)

Rejection: Deferring locks in Phase 1 failures; Phase 2 capabilities are mandatory to fix baseline governance.
Cost: Six-week external consultant sprint is financially unjustifiable; lacks existing stakeholder relationships to land workshops.
Silo: Standalone Microsoft Form creates data gaps and breaks CRM referral tracking required by the business case.

What this showed me was that framing against rejected alternatives changes how a commissioner hears the recommendation — justified choice, not an asserted one.

Full version

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. Alternative 2: Deploy external consultants to run a six-week sprint. Rejected: financially unjustifiable and lacks stakeholder relationships. Alternative 3: Use a standalone Microsoft Form. Rejected: creates data silos and breaks CRM integration.

& what makes a figure distinction-grade?

Say this (4 points)

Before: 31 outstanding; no measurable avoidance; no data infrastructure
After: 13 remaining; £390k illustrative; proxies labelled and sourced
Trajectory: Phase 2 infrastructure replaces proxies with actuals
Evaluative close: say this after any figure-based answer

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.

Full version

Distinction: Before/After pairs — not just the figure. David's pairs: (1) 31 outstanding → 13 remaining — trajectory, not just a number. (2) £0 measurable avoidance → £390k illustrative; proxies labelled, sourced. (3) £770k–£851k meeting costs; 12.5–14 FTE equivalent — human cost tangible.

& how do you move past naming a single framework?

Say this (3 points)

Combine: name two or more working together — not in sequence, in concert
Show how: Mendelow = who; Situational Leadership = how; Lewin = why Phase 1 failed
Evaluative close: say this after the frameworks answer

What this showed me was that the frameworks were most useful as diagnostic lenses — no single model does all three jobs.

Full version

Distinction: combine frameworks; show how they worked together. Three jobs, three tools: (1) Mendelow — mapped who needed what level of engagement. How: Power/interest grid → Director Shaw and Jim Ford both high power, different interest → different approaches required; one approach to both would have failed. (2) Situational Leadership — shaped how to pitch that engagement. How: Ford needed directing (rationale first, before collaboration) → Charlotte Saywell delegating → providers coaching through CRM constraints → not one style, deliberately shifted. (3) Lewin — explained why Phase 1 failed. How: Technology changed (change stage) without unfreezing first → referrer buy-in assumed not built → Phase 2 opens with requirements workshop precisely to unfreeze before any build begins. Also in play: Agile = delivery cadence · Cost-Benefit = decision framework · GROW = coaching structure. Key point: not parallel — working at different levels of the same project simultaneously.

& what shows your work outlasts the EPA period?

Say this (4 points)

POAP: Lisa endorsed; adopted as live programme governance — not a report; a running document
RAID log: now PMO mandatory — institutional, not personal
Coaching: 6 promotions, 2 burnout returns — outcomes outlast each engagement
Evaluative close: say this after governance or coaching answers

What this showed me was that the real test of whether governance work is sound is whether the team can continue without you.

Full version

Distinction: show work still in use after you leave. Three layers: (1) POAP — Lisa endorsed; live programme governance; team still using it. (2) RAID log — PMO mandatory; institutional not personal. (3) Weekly cadence — still running. Coaching legacy: 15 coachees · 5+ years · 6 promotions · 2 burnout returns. Referenced independently by Shanda Reid — not self-reported.

& what do you do when you don't have all the facts?

Say this (4 points)

Name the gap: £390k on proxies; strategic owner TBC; no financial baseline at Phase 2 start
Document it: RAID log, target dates, interim routes — visible, not concealed
Decide anyway: state what was chosen and why, given what was known
Evaluative close: say this after governance gap answers

What this showed me was that ambiguity managed transparently is not a weakness. Ambiguity concealed is.

Full version

Distinction: high-stakes decision without full facts — name it, document it, decide anyway. David's 3 examples: (1) £390k on proxies — five questions still outstanding; Lisa meeting 23 June. (2) Strategic owner TBC — against 30 May target date; still open on assessment day. (3) Phase 2 commenced — no confirmed financial baseline at start. Response pattern — same each time: Document gap visibly → build interim route → decide within known constraints → name what is still open.

› & what does Distinction sound like? — Pass to Distinction

& what does Distinction sound like in the room? Specific verbal behaviours below. Read. Say out loud.

If an assessor asks about...	Pass answer does this	Distinction answer does this
A decision you made	Describes what the decision was and the rationale	Names the criteria used to make the decision, describes the alternatives rejected, and identifies what was accepted as the cost of the chosen option
A framework or model	Names the framework and describes how it was used	Names the framework, describes how it was used, and then critiques its limitation in this specific context
A gap or weakness	Acknowledges the gap honestly	Acknowledges the gap, explains why it was accepted, describes the mitigation in place, and identifies what the residual risk is
A piece of evidence	Describes what the document shows	Tells the story behind the document: the context, the action taken, the outcome, and what was learned from it
Stakeholder challenge	Describes who the stakeholder was and what the challenge involved	Describes the power dynamic, the emotional component, the approach taken, why that approach rather than another, the outcome, and what would be done differently next time
Your development	Identifies a learning or development need	Identifies the learning, describes how practice changed as a result, and provides external evidence that the change was observable (e.g. Steve Humphrey's quote, coaching testimonial outcomes)

& the single most important distinction move?
One sentence after every answer. Evaluate; don't describe.

"What this showed me was..."
"The limitation of that approach was..."
"If I were doing this again, I would..."

That sentence is what separates a reflective practitioner from a competent one.