EPA 18 June 2026, 14:00
Panic card. Theory map. Distinction language. Open before 14:00.
& What were the rejected project alternatives?
Say this (3 points)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Your anchor sentence. Return to this if any answer feels adrift.
"The SWANN Phase 2 project directly addresses Shropshire Council's financial recovery mandate by building the data infrastructure needed to demonstrate cost avoidance on escalations: a quantifiable return on investment in early intervention that was previously impossible to evidence."
121 million pound financial emergency → Phase 1 failed to create data infrastructure → Phase 2 fixes governance before technology → 390,000 pound illustrative annual saving once infrastructure is live → Shropshire Plan 2022 to 2025 outcome alignment.
| Figure | What it means | Source |
|---|---|---|
| £121m | Financial emergency declared by Shropshire Council, 2024. The backdrop to everything. | Executive Summary; Proposal Section 1 |
| £770k to £851k | Annual meeting costs across Children's Services. 12.5 to 14 full-time social worker equivalents. | FFP Comms Update (As-Is Meetings Mapping) |
| £390k | Illustrative annual cost avoidance from SWANN Phase 2. ADASS and PSSRU proxy. Labelled as proxy, not confirmed. | Cost Avoidance v0.1; Proposal Section 6 |
| 15 coachees | West Midlands Coaching Pool. 2 returned from burnout. 6 received promotions. | Coaching Testimonials 2025 |
| 73+ staff | Engaged in As-Is Meetings Mapping data collection across Children's Services. | Charlotte Saywell testimony; ELD K5.1 |
| 31 → 13 referrals | 31 outstanding SWANN referrals (no SLA) as of 27 May. By 2 June: 13 remaining for Shropshire Mental Health (encryption fix in place). Live Well Shropshire cleared. 10 June update: confirmed not requiring further action from Customer Services; Shropshire Mental Health responding to residents. Confirm final count on 18 June. | SWANN updates 2 June; RAID log; Kate Hobbs |
| 5 partners | British Red Cross, Shropshire Mental Health Support, Community Resource, Live Well Shropshire, ICB. | SWANN Partnership documentation |
& who is the strategic owner and why TBC?
Say this (4 points)
& what is the current SLA position for those referrals?
Say this (5 points)
& what if you lose your thread?
Say this (3 points)
Name the framework. Say where you used it. Evaluate it (that is what moves Pass to Distinction). A single sentence evaluation is enough: "The limitation is..." or "In hindsight I would..."
| Change management / why Phase 1 failed | Kotter's 8-Step Model + Lewin's 3-Stage |
& change management / why phase 1 failed? Say this (2 points)
Full versionKotter explains what Phase 1 skipped (no urgency, no coalition, no early wins). Lewin: Phase 1 never unfroze the governance culture. |
Proposal Sections 9 to 10; Phase 2 design rationale |
| Coaching someone / supporting a colleague | GROW Model (non-directive) |
& coaching someone / supporting a colleague? Say this (2 points)
Full versionGoal, Reality, Options, Way Forward. Used with Claire Allen (sickness absence) and across 15 West Midlands Coaching Pool coachees. |
Claire Allen testimony; Shanda Reid testimony; ELD K4.2 |
| Financial value / proving cost avoidance | Theory of Change + Proxy Costing |
& financial value / proving cost avoidance? Say this (3 points)
Full versionLogic chain: early intervention prevents escalation, which avoids statutory care costs. Quantified via ADASS/PSSRU proxy. Explicitly labelled as proxy, not confirmed outturn. |
Cost Avoidance v0.1; Proposal Section 6; ELD K1.3 |
| Individual resistance to change / onboarding partners | ADKAR (Prosci) |
& individual resistance to change / onboarding partners? Say this (2 points)
Full versionAwareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement. Each partner organisation was at a different ADKAR stage when Phase 2 started. |
SWANN partner onboarding; Phase 2 change management |
| Leadership style / adapting to different people | Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership |
& leadership style / adapting to different people? Say this (2 points)
Full versionAdapted style from directing (low-maturity workstream members) to delegating (Kate Hobbs on CRM configuration). Not one style throughout. |
SWANN workstream leads; coaching pool; Charlotte Saywell testimony |
| Organisation-level diagnosis / root cause of Phase 1 | McKinsey 7S |
& organisation-level diagnosis / root cause of phase 1? Say this (2 points)
Full versionAll 7 elements misaligned in Phase 1: Strategy unclear, Structure fragmented, Systems absent, Staff unclear on roles. Used to frame the Phase 2 redesign rationale. |
Proposal Section 9 |
| Project delivery method / why Agile | Agile/Scrum: Empirical Process Control |
& project delivery method / why agile? Say this (3 points)
Full versionRequirements for data governance and referral fields were emergent, not fixed. Agile allowed iteration. Used Agile internally; milestone language externally for governance reporting. |
SWANN Phase 2 delivery structure; sprint retrospectives |
| Stakeholder management / partner engagement | Mendelow's Power/Interest Matrix |
& stakeholder management / partner engagement? Say this (3 points)
Full versionMapped all five SWANN partners by power and interest to decide where to invest engagement effort. ICB: high power, had to be managed closely. Community Resource: lower power, kept informed. |
FFP As-Is Meetings; SWANN Phase 2 partner engagement |
| Team development / managing the workstream team | Tuckman's Stages + Belbin Team Roles |
& team development / managing the workstream team? Say this (2 points)
Full versionRecognised the Phase 2 workstream team was in Storming when data governance disagreements surfaced. Used Belbin to identify role gaps. |
SWANN Phase 2 workstream team; coaching pool group work |
| If asked about... | Say this | One-line application | Where used |
|---|
Distinction is not more information. It is: name the framework, state why you chose it, evaluate whether it worked, and say what you would do differently. That structure alone moves Pass to Distinction.
| Pass level (avoid these) | Distinction level (use these) |
|---|---|
| "I think the stakeholder engagement went well." |
& not: i think the stakeholder engagement went well.? Say this (1 points)
Full versionPass: "I think the stakeholder engagement went well." Distinction: "The evidence showed the engagement approach worked: Charlotte Saywell's testimony notes that partner organisations changed their own internal practices as a result of the As-Is Meetings mapping process." |
| "We used Agile because it was flexible." |
& not: we used agile because it was flexible.? Say this (2 points)
Full versionPass: "We used Agile because it was flexible." Distinction: "I chose Agile specifically because the requirements for the data governance model and referral form fields were emergent. A Waterfall approach would have locked in requirements we could not yet define. The limitation is that Agile made milestone reporting for governance harder, which is why I used milestone language externally while running sprints internally." |
| "It was a team effort." |
& not: it was a team effort.? Say this (2 points)
Full versionPass: "It was a team effort." Distinction: "My specific contribution was the dependency mapping across the five concurrent workstreams. I introduced the cross-workstream check into each sprint retrospective, which surfaced the data governance dependency on CRM configuration before it became a blocker." |
| "I tried to engage the partners early." |
& not: i tried to engage the partners early.? Say this (2 points)
Full versionPass: "I tried to engage the partners early." Distinction: "I applied Mendelow's matrix to map the five partner organisations by power and interest. The ICB was high power and initially uncertain, so I prioritised direct engagement at leadership level. Community Resource was lower power, so I kept them informed rather than consulted at that stage." |
| "I used the GROW model for coaching." |
& not: i used the grow model for coaching.? Say this (2 points)
Full versionPass: "I used the GROW model for coaching." Distinction: "I used GROW as a non-directive framework specifically because the coachee, Claire Allen, needed to own the solution to the sickness absence problem herself. If I had prescribed the answer, she would not have been invested in it. The outcome was that she designed the process change, which meant implementation had no resistance." |
| "The cost avoidance figure is £390,000." |
& not: the cost avoidance figure is £390,000.? Say this (2 points)
Full versionPass: "The cost avoidance figure is £390,000." Distinction: "The illustrative cost avoidance is £390,000. I am being precise: that is a proxy figure based on ADASS and PSSRU unit costs, not an evidenced outturn. I labelled it explicitly as a proxy in the proposal because presenting it as a confirmed saving would have been intellectually dishonest. The benefits realisation plan is the mechanism that converts it from a proxy to a real figure once the portal is live." |
& what does distinction actually mean?
Say this (3 points)
& How does my work align with the CMI Level 5 KSB framework?
Say this (12 points)
If you have forgotten the scale of what you have built over the last two years; sit back and read this. You are not a technical analyst tracking tasks for a project manager; you are a CMI Level 5 Strategic Leader who stepped into an operational vacuum at Shropshire Council during a £121 million financial emergency. You drove the SWANN Phase 2 Transformation from an undefined concept into a structured, validated corporate pathway. Here is your master alignment framework. It functions as an unassailable cheat sheet that maps your real-world data directly to 12 distinct CMI Level 5 Knowledge, Skills and Behaviors (KSBs).
The Evidence: I completely cleared the Live Well Shropshire queue from Customer Services and systematically reduced the redundant mental health provider backlog from 31 outstanding cases down to 13.
The Distinction Pivot: I did not just clear a queue; I identified that the root cause of the initial 31-case bottleneck was mailbox encryption. I personally deployment-tested the structural fix via the Swan mailbox to restore immediate pipeline velocity.
Critical Evaluation: I learned that optimizing frontline digital intake channels is completely meaningless unless you actively manage the downstream provider capacity to absorb the newly unlocked demand.
The Evidence: I developed and defended an ironclad financial model demonstrating a total indicative annual cost avoidance of £390,000; breaking down into £30,000 assessment-level and £360,000 direct care package avoidance.
The Distinction Pivot: I built this model on a baseline of 200 annual referrals with a conservative 20% deflection rate derived directly from NHS England social prescribing frameworks to avoid 40 formal care escalations long term.
Boundary Awareness: I explicitly stated to senior leadership that this model carries clear analytical boundaries; it relies on ADASS and PSSRU proxy data models until our live digital infrastructure captures empirical local datasets.
The Evidence: I personally mapped and engaged over 73 staff members across multiple departments during the FFP Comms Update data collection phase.
The Distinction Pivot: I synthesized this extensive qualitative feedback to isolate systemic delivery flaws. This directly resulted in 4 critical recommendations escalated straight to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and established direct alignment with the Health and Wellbeing Board.
Critical Evaluation: I recognized that managing senior stakeholder anxiety across departmental boundaries matters as much as building the core technical database.
The Evidence: I navigated a critical governance gap where the permanent Strategic Owner of the service pathway remained completely undefined and marked as 'TBC'.
The Distinction Pivot: Rather than allowing the project to stagnate due to this administrative vacancy; I negotiated an interim governance framework where the PMO steering group holds temporary operational custody until the post-transformation board review.
Absolute Personal Accountability: I led the project structure independently. I designed the entire delivery architecture to be system-agnostic; ensuring the pathway can adapt seamlessly to any permanent departmental home without costly re-engineering.
The Evidence: I managed severe operational resistance from senior stakeholders; notably Jim Ford who openly resisted the initiative by stating that Phase 1 had not even been properly completed.
The Distinction Pivot: Instead of treating his resistance as friction; I validated his concerns and integrated a concurrent Phase 1 cleanup workstream directly inside the Phase 2 delivery scope.
The Result: I successfully converted an active corporate resistor into a core project advocate within two weeks; securing the operational alignment required to co-design our new data models.
The Evidence: I led the comprehensive requirements workshops to replace fragmented email update structures with a fully integrated Microsoft Dynamics 365 portal and Power BI dashboard.
The Distinction Pivot: I defined the technical user stories to merge data flows across customer services, external mental health providers and internal commissioning teams.
Boundary Awareness: I explicitly limited the dashboard scope to contract monitoring requirements under Lesley Richards; identifying that wider LiquidLogic integrations must remain subject to separate senior corporate decisions.
The Evidence: I successfully balanced four competing corporate workstreams; including the primary SWANN Phase 2 project, the parallel EPA submission, the EHM mapping and the IMPACT board observations.
The Distinction Pivot: When capacity limits threatened delivery timelines; I refused to absorb the stress silently. I formally escalated the capacity risks in writing to Steve H and Charlie; intentionally deprioritising the EHM mapping to protect the core transformation pathway.
Critical Evaluation: I established strict weekly sprint goals. This disciplined approach prevented reactive operational drift and allowed me to pre-plan my absences; delivering complete documentation packages to Lisa Middleton ahead of schedule.
The Evidence: I designed and executed a capability-building strategy to transition staff across three distinct change groups from legacy manual workflows to automated systems.
The Distinction Pivot: I coached frontline teams moving from telephone intakes to digital portal screens; and up-skilled commissioning personnel moving from manual spreadsheets to live Power BI dashboards.
The Result: I systematically built long-term digital confidence across the council; ensuring the staff were operationally prepared to run the pathway independently after my exit.
The Evidence: I identified and managed the highly critical post-EPA continuity risk (R_005) regarding project leadership.
The Distinction Pivot: I flagged that the live assessment creates an immediate structural dependency. I enforced a mitigation strategy requiring Steve Humphrey to formally log a continuity decision within five working days to protect the portal launch.
Absolute Personal Accountability: I took individual ownership of the risk register; updating active risk reviews weekly rather than treating the RAID log as a static compliance document.
The Evidence: I translated highly complex financial deflection matrices and data architecture maps into clear; jargon-free strategic updates.
The Distinction Pivot: I adapted my communication style to match diverse audiences; presenting technical portal requirements to Kate Hobbs while delivering macro-level social prescribing arguments to the Health and Wellbeing Board.
The Result: I won full administrative buy-in across all tiers of the council without diluting the technical accuracy of the underlying project plan.
The Evidence: I co-designed the digital referral interfaces alongside professional referrers who were abandoning calls due to excessive telephone hold times.
The Distinction Pivot: I ensured the electronic forms were built directly around user-experience data; incorporating specific fields for signposting and next-of-kin tracking to capture complex vulnerabilities.
The Result: I fostered an inclusive design environment that directly addressed staff burnout; breaking down traditional siloed working practices across adult social care teams.
The Evidence: I executed a fully transparent statement of authenticity for my entire portfolio submission; backed by verified operational data.
The Distinction Pivot: True Level 5 integrity means practicing active self-critique. I openly documented my initial project limitations; acknowledging that my early focus was too narrow and heavily focused on micro-level process data mapping.
The Result: I successfully shifted my management style to embrace macro-level strategic governance; proving that I can deliver tangible financial value under intense corporate scrutiny.