EPA Assessment Day Hub: David Agyei

Assessment: 18 June 2026, 14:00

How to use this hub ›

Quick Launch (Section 1) opens each reference file in a new tab. Keep this hub open behind them so you can return to it between sections.

Golden Thread (Section 2) is the one sentence that anchors every answer. Return to it whenever you feel a question pulling you away from the core narrative.

Theory Names (Section 3) gives you the seven frameworks to name. Use these whenever the assessor asks which models or frameworks you used.

Governance Gaps (Section 4) holds your prepared answers for the two most dangerous open questions: the strategic owner TBC and the referral position (13 outstanding for Shropshire Mental Health as of 2 June; confirm on 18 June).

Distinction Reminders (Section 5) tells you the exact verbal behaviour that separates Distinction from Pass. Read it before you start.

Before the day, open the Assessment Day Checklist to track prep progress.

1. Quick Launch › Open your reference files in new tabs. Seven prep files and four submitted documents, each group in alphabetical order.

Drill - Mock Q and A Practice

22 assessor questions with model answers.
Audio playback with pause and resume.
Listen on the go at any speed.

Proof - Evidence Locator

Use during Q&A and Professional Discussion.
Ctrl+F any KSB.
Read the bullet points column first.

Proof - Star Achievements

12 SAO achievement cards.
6 Pass+Distinction KSBs first, then leadership moments from testimonies.
Read the Outcome line first if under pressure.

Proof - Use of Theories

Use for framework questions and the eight dangerous questions.
Contains Pass and Distinction answers for each.

Ref - Jargon and Theories

Live search across jargon and theories.
Click any theory to expand.
Filter instantly with the page search bar.

Ref - Memory Jog and Distinction

Panic card and distinction language guide.
Open if your mind goes blank during the assessment.

Ref - Witness Testimonies

Use when the assessor asks about your witnesses.
Find the name, read the bullet points, tell the story.

Submitted Documents

Project Proposal (4,000 words)

Complete submitted proposal: executive summary, project plan, financial analysis,
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.
, appendices.
Audio enabled.

Project Tracker

Full RAID log: 8 risks, 2 issues, 6 assumptions, 15 actions, 4 dependencies, 8 decisions.
Key evidence for governance, risk management and decision-making KSBs.

Submitted Governance Documents

All four submitted documents in one file.
Actual submitted KSB mapping across 3 groups and 25 KSBs with Pass and Pass+Distinction grades.

Submitted Presentation

Full slide-by-slide content with audio.
Use to rehearse delivery and hear your own evidence read back to you.

Before the session starts: open all seven prep links above and the four submitted document links below so they are ready in separate tabs. Test Google Meet screen sharing with your slides before 14:00.

2. Golden Thread › The one sentence that connects everything. Return here whenever an answer feels adrift.

Your anchor sentence

"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."

£121m financial emergency → Phase 1 failed to create data infrastructure → Phase 2 designed to fix governance before technology →

£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."

illustrative annual saving once data infrastructure is in place → Shropshire Plan 2022 to 2025 outcome alignment.

Supporting figures to know cold

Figure	What it means	Where it comes from
12.5 to 14 FTE	Social worker equivalent of that meeting cost. Makes the human cost tangible.	As-Is Meetings Analysis Report
15 coachees	West Midlands Coaching Pool. 2 returned from burnout. 6 received promotions.	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." ; ELD K4.2
31 → 13 referrals	31 outstanding (27 May); 13 remaining for Shropshire Mental Health as of 2 June. Live Well Shropshire cleared. 10 June update: confirmed not requiring further action from Customer Services; 13 pending Shropshire Mental Health provider responses to residents. Confirm final count on 18 June.	SWANN updates 2 June; RAID log; Kate Hobbs
73+ staff	Number engaged in 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. data collection.	Charlotte Saywell testimony; ELD K5.1
£121m	Financial emergency declared by Shropshire Council, 2024. Context for the whole project.	Executive Summary; Proposal Section 1
£390k	Illustrative annual cost avoidance from SWANN Phase 2. Calculation: 200 referrals/yr x 20% deflection = 40 escalations avoided. 40 x £750 assessment cost = £30k; 24 care packages avoided x £15k = £360k. Total: £390k. All inputs are ADASS/PSSRU proxies, labelled as such, not confirmed figures.	Cost Avoidance v0.1; Proposal Section 6
£770k to £851k	Annual meeting costs identified across Children's Services in the As-Is Meetings Mapping project.	FFP Comms Update (Evidence 9); ELD K1.3

3. Theory Names at a Glance › Name the framework, say where you used it, then evaluate its limitation. Tables are A–Z by decision area.

The question: "Which models or frameworks informed your approach?" Do not answer with tools (RAID log, sprint board). Answer with named theories. Then critique them.

Decision Area	Theory to Name	One-line limitation to add
Change management	Lewin (unfreeze/change/refreeze) and Kotter (creating urgency, guiding coalition)	Both assume organisational control; real change in multi-agency context is messier than either model suggests.
Coaching	GROW model; non-directive, person-centred approach	Non-directive only works when coachee has sufficient readiness; had to shift to more directive scaffolding in burnout cases.
Financial analysis	Proxy costing with ADASS/PSSRU benchmarks	National averages, not Shropshire-specific; the model is illustrative until Phase 2 creates actuals.
Leadership	Situational Leadership (Hersey and Blanchard)	Assumes leader has authority to direct; in cross-functional work without line authority, requires influence to substitute for direction.
Options appraisal	Cost-benefit analysis with do-nothing baseline (Green Book)	Proportionate not exhaustive; no risk-adjusted cost estimates for each option.
Project management	Agile/Scrum: empirical process control (inspect and adapt)	Public sector procurement cycles do not align with sprint cadence; required adaptation not pure Scrum.
Stakeholder management	Mendelow's Power/Interest Matrix	Does not capture emotional investment or relationship history; supplemented with trust-building.

Full detail cards with prepared sentences are in the Proof - Use of Theories file.

Presentation Slides Quick Reference

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

Decision area	Choice made	Alternative rejected	Why this choice
Delivery method	Agile/sprint approach	Waterfall/traditional project plan	Requirements were emergent: the team could not specify the data governance model until they started mapping it. Agile allowed adaptation. Waterfall would have locked in the wrong solution early.
Referral channel	Microsoft Dynamics portal	Standalone form or spreadsheet	Dynamics integrates with existing council infrastructure so data flows rather than being re-entered. A standalone form would have replicated the Phase 1 problem: data captured but not connected to anything trackable.
Workstream structure	Concurrent workstreams	Sequential (one after another)	Sequential would have added 6 to 8 weeks. Concurrent required dependency management but delivered faster and allowed early learning from each stream to inform the others.

4. Governance Gap Answers › Two open questions that need your live input before Wednesday. Fill in the brackets.

Strategic Owner (TBC in ToR)

Risk: The SWANN SPoR ToR v1.0 lists the Strategic Owner as TBC with a target confirmation date of 30 May 2026. The assessor has read this document. This question will be asked.

What you need to know before 14:00

Who is the confirmed strategic owner?
On what date was it confirmed?
If still TBC: what is the current escalation status?

Say this (3 sentences)

Name the governance decision: "The TBC was not an oversight. Confirmation was pending a meeting scheduled for 23 June 2026. I documented it as a RAID risk with a target date rather than leaving it open."
State current status: "The strategic owner role is formally TBC as of today. This is named as a live RAID risk in the project documentation with a target confirmation date of 30 May. Lisa Middleton holds effective senior accountability as Commissioning Officer; a follow-up conversation is scheduled for 23 June to close the formal confirmation. I named this gap deliberately rather than leaving it as an empty field."
Connect to the learning: "Phase 1 showed precisely what happens when governance gaps are left unresolved. I applied that learning here by making the gap visible rather than managing around it."

Referral Position: 31 (27 May) → 13 Outstanding (2 June)

Risk: Confirmed at the 27 May SWANN partnership meeting. An assessor who has read the full portfolio may ask what is happening to those families right now.

What you need to know before 14:00

What is the current count as of 18 June?
What is the interim management arrangement while Phase 2 is being built?
Has the absence of an SLA been escalated formally?

Say this (3 sentences)

Name the risk, own the visibility: "31 referrals with no SLA as of 27 May: a live operational risk I surfaced at the partnership meeting. By 2 June, 13 remained outstanding for Shropshire Mental Health, the root cause being a mailbox encryption issue now fixed via the new Swan mailbox. I brought this explicitly to the partnership because these are families who sought support once and a second failure has both a human and a reputational cost. I will confirm the position as of 18 June."
State current position: "As of 2 June: 13 referrals with Shropshire Mental Health (down from 31 on 27 May). 10 June workshop confirmed these were not dependent on Customer Services: referrals forwarded, Shropshire Mental Health responding to residents. I will confirm the final count as of 18 June at the start of this assessment."
Connect to the project: "The Phase 2 portal addresses the root cause. Referrals currently arrive through inconsistent channels with no tracking. Once live, response times become measurable and accountable."

5. Distinction Reminders › Read before you start. Comparison table is A–Z by topic.

The single most important distinction behaviour

After every answer, add one evaluative sentence: "What this showed me was..." or "The limitation of that approach was..." or "If I were doing this again, the thing I would change is..." That sentence is what separates a reflective practitioner from a competent one.

When asked about...	Pass does this	Distinction does this
A decision	Describes what was decided and why	Names the criteria used, describes the alternatives rejected, identifies the cost accepted
A gap or weakness	Acknowledges it honestly	Acknowledges it, explains why it was accepted, describes the mitigation, names the residual risk
A piece of evidence	Describes what the document shows	Tells the story: context, action, outcome, learning
A theory or model	Names it and describes use	Names it, describes use, then critiques its limitation in this specific context
Own development	Identifies a learning or gap	Identifies the learning, describes how practice changed, provides external evidence the change was observable
Stakeholder challenge	Describes the stakeholder and the challenge	Describes the power dynamic, the emotional component, the approach and why that approach, the outcome, and what would be done differently

Evidence to anchor every coaching answer

When asked about coaching (K4.2, S4.2): 15 coachees, West Midlands Coaching Pool, 5+ years voluntary, 2 returned from burnout, 6 promotions. External validation from Shanda Reid (independent of Shropshire Council). Level 5 coaching qualification. CPD: systemic coaching, wellbeing, career transitions. Theory used: GROW model, non-directive, person-centred.

Evidence to anchor every influencing without authority answer

FFP Comms Update (Evidence 9): Director Shaw committed to reviewing his own meeting attendance. HWBB adopted the methodology cross-organisationally. Charlotte Saywell: "Great piece of work David." No line authority over Director, AD or Programme Manager. Data did the influencing, not seniority.