BEIS0001203
BEIS0001203
Message
From: Stephanie COSSOM (DBT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=E3281DC70EA449138A76C4A8AD961443-COSSOM, STE]
Sent: 13/08/2024 16:43:47
To: PostOfficePMO [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=a0775 1047c774b8693a83a9f082194d0-PostOfficeP]
cc: Helen THOMAS (DBT) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=f89e1bf10f764b6393d98dcf782b22b0-c4745329-8c]; Brooks-White Jobshare
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF 23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=a5a68b98b3924f93a3f36ec331920526-DIT_Brooks-]; Rob BRIGHTWELL (DBT)
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=6ee37e0647e74d2dbff17a13844fa8c2-f33d4086-cb]; Sereine BARA (DBT)
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=e639727598854e90bcd165588e4ce465-ba747S5ee-05]
Subject: RE: Papers: Horizon Redress Programme Board (Conducted via correspondence)
Hello Sereine,
This is a really useful and thorough exercise to consider alignment of governance across
compensation schemes. I’m sharing thoughts as it has implications for HSS, capture, SRR and PPR.
Also I’ve recently completed a big piece of postgrad coursework on what ‘good’ accountability looks
like so I’m sharing the immense joy/learnings!
I might be teaching you to suck eggs (apols if so) - the challenges on accountability go beyond
performance and VfM on offer approvals. It’s also about responsiveness, responsibility, transparency,
competence, capacity, innovation, and fairness/consistency/ethics. Some of those might be suffering
in the current setup.
I suspect the wish for Carl to grip the risks and complexity around spend and performance challenges
might be where some nervousness comes in. But I think you can argue that now is the right time to
test or shift our approach, given the increasing size of the team and increasing number of
compensation schemes we're taking on. Greater delegation here will both support VfM and
performance, demonstrate facilitative leadership and grip as well as addressing those wider strategic
challenges.
A few specific thoughts:
- Accountability/governance structures shouldn’t be static and should be adaptive / flexible /
iterative, and thus regularly reviewed. If needed, perhaps as a backup is proof of concept -
piloting it first on certain scheme/s to test how it goes in 3 months, and then reviewing and
spreading best practice to other schemes?
- I think it would help to state what success, best practice and good governance looks like and
how we will know when we have achieved it. As I mentioned — we should set out that those
approving financial limits are responsible for all elements of accountability on offers and are
clear on their responsibilities.
- You talk about benefits/risks of delegating approvals — you’ve mentioned speed, wellbeing,
empowerment, and a risk around strategic decision making. I think you’re missing some big
benefits:
o increased, diverse representation in governance structures and listening/information
sharing;
o improved fairness/ethics: increased representation encourages debate, interrogation,
dialogue and challenges individual heuristics/bias/groupthink of decision makers
© greater responsiveness;
© greater openness and transparency;
BEIS0001203
BEIS0001203
increased team understanding and shared common ground;
improved team capacity and capability;
It's a sign of a healthy/sustainable team; and
improved innovation and service delivery.
- The risks you mention are around strategic approach, but I think also include clashing
approaches, inconsistency, disparities, poor value for money etc. — you might need to set out
how you minimise these, for example through enhancing information sharing on offer
procedures across schemes? E.g. we could, at G6/G7 level, have regular monthly meetings to
talk about our approach to offers to share intelligence and best practice.
- This is still quite a ‘DBT’ focused paper around our internal procedures and processes on how
we quality assure our performance in a transparent, fair and equitable way. I know this isn’t
really the focus of the paper, but we do of course have wider accountability around financial
approvals and risk mitigation/management of the schemes — that we report to perm sec,
Ministers, and the advisory board on performance, who accordingly hold us to account and
ensure intelligence and values are brought into our decision making.
oo000
Hope that is helpful anyway - shout if you want to chat or if any of the above is unclear.
Best,
Steph
HR Stephanie Cossom I Head of HSS Compensation I Post Office Team
‘ihe Depart it for Business and Trade I Old Admiralty Building, London, SW1A 2DY
EA
GRO
Department for
Business & Trade
Pronouns: She/her
Twitter I LinkedIn I great.gov.uk
From: PostOfficePMO i.”
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 4:31 PM
Te Carl CRESWELL (DBT)
EBELl=«(DBT)
MICHELSON (DBT) j
Subject: RE: Papers: Horizon Redress Programme Board (Conducted via correspondence)
BEIS0001203
BEIS0001203
Dear All,
For review by the Programme Board. Comments are welcome before the next Programme board, due to happen on the
21° of August.
Kind Regards,
Joel.
Post Office PMO I PMO for Schemes and Projects related to Horizon RedressI
Department for Business and Trade I Caxton House / Old Admiralty Building [London]
Twitter I LinkedIn I great.gov.uk