To receive an update on Step 2: ‘Establish a simple and effective performance management framework to monitor progress in developing the well-being steps and achieving the vision’.
Minutes:
Mr J Atkins Step 2 Lead and Mr P Furnell Step 2 Operational Lead attended the meeting to give an update on Step 2.
The responsibility for Step 2 had formally sat with the Step Lead since February 2019. The work to date had centred around understanding the performance arrangements of each partner organisation with the aim of agreeing a common framework. It was identified early that it was necessary to ensure that any indicators were meaningful and manageable. A suggested proportionality of indicators would be that there would be around three indicators for each step giving a total of 36 indicators. Progress to date had been dependent of progress of the different steps. Some steps had made more progress than others. To date much of the work had taken place behind the scenes with useful facilitating conversations.
In order for the framework to be effective it will need to present information to different groups including the PSB, PSB Scrutiny, Town and Community Councils and the public.
One of the problems experienced is that the Step Lead comes from one of the smaller partner organisations (with around only 100 employees) and finds it difficult to resource the support of this Step. This difficulty is exacerbated by staff turnover.
The following reporting schematic was provided:
The Operational Lead outlined how different assurance frameworks had been examined including suggestions from the National Park auditors and joint working with the Head of Transformation and Communications and the local authority. The frameworks will be completed by the delivery teams for onward reporting to the PSB and PSB Scrutiny.
The reporting schematic includes the sources of data which will be used to ensure that agreed actions are evidence driven.
The following draft assurance framework was put forward for consideration:
Attention was drawn to the Activity Status section which would be a particularly important part of the reporting framework.
Will this be accessible as a live document?
A common way to use this information is being sought. At present the local authority are using Power BI which the Fire Authority also use. The National Park need to improve their reporting systems but a common approach maybe to use Microsoft Sway. It is intended that the method used should be interactive as well as visual.
This differs from some other assurance frameworks which would include detail of the aim at the beginning of the document.
Detail of the aim of the step should be outlined within the delivery plan. If the delivery plan is correct the reporting schedule should be straightforward.
It has been suggested that three indicators will be identified for each step. Is this prescribed or might different steps require fewer or more indicators?
The indicators have yet to be finalised and steps may require fewer or more indicators.
Is there a place where partners contribution or lack of support to a step is recorded?
This is likely to be by omission rather than an explicit record and this would be an opportunity for scrutiny to question the Step Lead in this regard.
How do Step Leads work with other organisations over which they have no authority?
The Delivery Group (of Operational Leads) is the place where these issues would be discussed but ultimately this would be a matter for the PSB.
What are the risks of using such a performance framework?
It is the professional judgement of a Step Lead what to include in the schedule. It will be essential that this is honestly completed for this to be of value.
What is the reporting cycle?
Steps are led by Leads from organisations which have different reporting cycles. It is the intention that a common PSB reporting cycle is developed whereby quarterly performance reports are provided.
Different steps have different timeframes. Can this be included in the performance framework?
This is detailed in the delivery plan but can be included in the Details – Description part of the performance framework.
PSB Scrutiny will need to have sight of what performance information is going to the PSB.
Initially the performance reports will be published in pdf from. It is the intention to have a high level dashboard for the PSB with further dashboards for each of the steps.
It will be necessary to have a record of the performance reported at the point in time it is reported.
The requirement for a static report for the public record is understood and will be included in any proposals brought forward.
Is the Step Lead receiving support from the Powys Teaching Health Board?
Yes. The reporting that already takes place in this organisation is being considered to see how this can feed into the overall arrangements.
What is preventing progress on this step?
The different rates of progress with the different steps mean that it is not known what performance arrangements and indicators are needed on those steps (7 and 8) where least progress has been made.
A further difficulty is resourcing the support for these Steps when the PSB is not funded in the same way that RPBs are funded.
There is synergy between the RPB and PSB with the PSB delegating steps 5,11 and 12 to the RPB thereby opening up access to Intermediate Care Fund monies to progress these steps.
Recommended that:
The PSB be advised that progress on Step 2 has been hampered by the lack of progress on Steps 7 and 8 and that PSB advise the scrutiny committee what actions are being taken to ensure that this block is being addressed.
That the PSB provide scrutiny with a schedule of steps with a number of agreed performance indicators and note when the performance indicators were agreed for that step. This information to be provided to each meeting until the whole performance framework is in place.
The Step Lead and Operational Step Lead were thanked for their attendance at the meeting.
Supporting documents: