Scottish Government

SB(07)7th Conclusions

STRATEGIC BOARD MEETING

5 APRIL 2007

Agenda item 1: Minutes and matters arising

1. The minutes of the previous meeting (SB(07)6th conclusions) were formally agreed for publication. Under matters arising, it was noted that discussion about the 'corporate narrative' would be deferred to the meeting on 3 May, following PBIG's consideration of connected issues and that Andrew Goudie was meeting with Transport colleagues the following week to explore the governance issues discussed by the Board. This issue, and a proposed remit, would come to the Board on 3 May.

Agenda item 2: Implementation plan

2. Members of the Board reported that progress against 'their' sections of the Implementation Plan remained on track, and that there were no issues which required further discussion, other than those already on the agenda for the meeting. Kevin Woods noted that the Delivery Group's work on mapping the delivery landscape would be taken forward in a way which could not be misread as implying any significant re-shaping of Scottish public services. The Permanent Secretary drew colleagues' attention to the recent publication of the report on the 3rd round of Whitehall Capability Reviews and in particular the common issues which emerged in that.

3. Robert Gordon said that he had recently had a productive session with Paul Pagliari and his team in his capacity as chair of PBIG. He had been reassured that good progress was being made on the people aspects of the Taking Stock action plan and that there was a tangible sense of common purpose and direction among the team. The purpose of this discussion was to give the Board an opportunity to hear and consider the strategic priorities for the HR function in the coming months and to assess the risks to delivery of those tasks.

4. Paul Pagliari said that he too was confident about the good progress that had been made, and of being able to deliver the outcomes required. He identified the areas of business which were working to deliver the priorities for the HR agenda, (employee relations and reward; resourcing centre of expertise; HR shared service centre; HR business partners; e-HR; Corporate Learning Services and the Senior Staff Team) and the known risks or obstacles to delivery.

5. In discussion the following points were made:

• While a deliberate decision had been taken to get the key components of the HR systems in place prior to publishing a people strategy, it was also important that the guiding strategic principles should be well understood in order to ensure that what was done in the component parts was consistent with the overall vision. Having this would also provide a high level narrative to support and explain what drove particular decisions or approaches;
• designed correctly, the Employee Survey would be a good measure of success in the implementation of HR measures and it should seek to do this as deeply as possible, teasing out the impact on different groups of staff in the organisation. However, in the interim period it would be useful to find other means of measuring the impact of the changes, including anecdotal evidence;
• there were execution risks associated with the limited capacity in HR which was resourced to deliver existing commitments, but would be severely stretched if it had to take on additional responsibility or if existing tasks proved more onerous than at present;
• while there was a strong current commitment to delivering the tasks in the Taking Stock implementation plan, there was a valid argument for revisiting these and reprioritising if pressures were brought to bear on resources and as time moved on.

6. The Board agreed that, given the probability of some of the potential risks associated with delivery coming to fruition, Paul Pagliari should assist PBIG in gaining a better understanding of how the delivery plan would be affected. and make proposals for adjusting the plan if necessary. ( Action: Paul Pagliari and PBIG). The Board also required the key elements of the People Strategy to be articulated for their benefit so that they could clearly see and understand the strategic drivers behind current and future activities. This should be accompanied by a set of success measures about delivering the key benefits for the business. ( Action: Paul Pagliari)

Agenda item 4: Preparing for an incoming administration

7. Sarah Smith summarised the work in hand centrally on preparing for the incoming administration. This included the development and issue of election guidance, supported by a series of staff seminars, and the work that had taken place in preparation of spending review options and choices for the next administration. The manifesto BriX template and guidance had also been finalised and would be issued as soon as the various manifestos were in the public domain. Provisional plans had also been made to offer support, if asked, after the election to parties negotiating potential coalitions for government. A variety of support such as secretariat and administrative functions; editorial support; liaison with negotiating parties, and specialist support such as financial and legislative advice would be available, but only activated as requested by the negotiating parties. Thought was also being given to the preparation of advice for incoming Ministers, and in this context, it was agreed that all Departments should provide the Board with a list of the key ongoing policy issues on which incoming Ministers would need to consider or take decisions on during the initial months of the new administration. This would enable the Board to see the overall picture, and take a view on how to present the totality to an incoming First Minister and Deputy First Minister. (Action: Secretariat and all Departments)

8. It was agreed that it would be helpful for all Heads of Department to be aware of the extent of the preparations and expectations in terms of manifesto BriX etc. The forthcoming Top Management Seminar would also offer an opportunity to brief people on a variety of leadership issues associated with a change of administration.

9. David Middleton and his colleagues presented paper SB(07)15, the report from the Review of Internal Challenge. David said that it had become clear to the team that resolving cultural and behavioural issues lay at the heart of the issue, and that this required to be approached as an adaptive rather than a technical challenge. Notwithstanding this, there was clearly scope for improving existing business processes to support challenge and monitoring more effectively than at present.

10. In discussion the following points were made:

• receptiveness to challenge and the requirement to provide evidence and analysis to back up decisions was a fundamental component of accountability. It might be helpful to find alternative and less combative language if the constructive and supportive aspects of challenge were to be stressed;
• the balance between self-assessment and external challenge was an important one. The nature of the interaction would vary according to the position in the policy cycle;
• the 'challenge' process could be seen as ensuring that the right things were done, and 'delivery management' as ensuring that they were done correctly. The accountability line in one direction was to ensure that people were clear what it was they were to do, and in the other, to be satisfied that they had done what had been asked of them;
• strategic communications could play a role in challenging the narrative underpinning choices and decisions;
• an intelligent and comprehensible challenge system which people could clearly understand and navigate through would deliver immense benefits;
• the Strategic Board could use challenge as a process which allowed it to give reassurances to Cabinet about progress on key strategic policy and delivery issues;
• it would be important to ensure that any ensuing debate about challenge was not hi-jacked by discussions about structures. What was important was what actually happened in the organisation and the behaviours which were deployed, not where the function sat. A bad structural design could blur clarity, but the starting point for achieving the objectives was not a structural one. Nonetheless, it would be important to ensure that nothing in the structures impeded effective challenge.
• More emphasis could be placed on the role of the analytical service function in challenge.

11. The Board agreed that the statements included at section 2 of the paper, which envisaged challenge as an essentially integrative activity, should be the foundation of the challenge model, and that the recommendations at paragraph 3.18 to reduce the complexity and improve the connections of the current processes within a single corporate performance framework were accepted, subject to ensuring that plans were set in line with the hierarchy established in the paper. As next steps, the Board agreed that more work was required to clarify the challenge model, including in relation to communications issues; that in particular it should be clear what contribution each central team could make to the supporting the model and making it work; and whether there was anything about where those teams sat which was capable of either enhancing or detracting from the performance of the model. (Action: Delivery Group and Delivery Division)

Agenda item 6: leadership structures

12. The Board discussed the ongoing work on the shape of the leadership structures and the roles of Board members within a revised structure. It was recognised that there were a number of way in which Departments might be organised in order to deliver the business, and that it would be important to be clear about the principles and business logic which underpinned the various options, not least because of the need to communicate these clearly both internally and externally. Key questions to address in looking at options included, how the structures supported outcomes; the rough balance in commands, and how these would be viewed and navigated by stakeholders, including Ministers. The overall narrative about the changes remained unchanged from that articulated at the time of Taking Stock, i.e. it was about establishing a focussed and effective guiding coalition for the organisation which was well placed to enter into a working partnership with the political leadership, while at the same time drawing a larger group of leaders into the concept of senior leadership.

13. The Board noted that Paul Gray had been asked to take forward this work on their behalf, including consideration of what arrangements would be needed to support a transition to new structures and ways of working. The initial outcomes of this work would be considered further by the Board on the occasion of its next meeting.

Date of next meeting

8. Thursday 3 May at 08.30.

Cabinet Secretariat

April 2007