NRS STRATEGIC BOARD MEETING
Wednesday 12 March 2025, 10:00 – 13:00
Hybrid
Attendees
Alison Byrne, Chief Executive (Chair)
Anne Moises, Non-Executive Director
Tim Wright, Non-Executive Director
Maggie Waterston, Non-Executive Director
Director of Digital & Delivery
Director of Information and Records Services & Deputy Keeper
Director of Corporate Services & NRS Accountable Officer
Director of Census Statistics
Director of Statistics
Chief Finance Officer
NRS Head of Customer Services Operations (interim)
Corporate Governance Manager – BMU
NRS Head of Digital Engineering
NRS Project Manager
Head of Portfolio & Governance (Business change)
Deloitte
Deloitte
Deloitte
NRS BMU - Secretariat
Apologies:
Head of BMU
NRS Head of Policy
Corporate Business Assurance Manager
1. Welcome, Introductions and Apologies
1.1 The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as listed above.
2. Review of previous minutes/action log and Declarations of Interest
2.1 Minutes of 11 December 2024
The minutes of 11 December 2024 were approved
2.2 Action log
The action log was reviewed and updated. A37917071
2.3 Declarations of Interest
There were no new declarations of interest.
3. People Survey
3.1 An overview was provided on the People Survey. Points of note included:
- The overall response rate had dropped between 2022 and 2023 from 74% to 58%
- There were positive changes in areas of learning and development and the organisation was considered a positive place to work including career development
- Work would continue to aim for higher scores
3.2 Some of the negative changes were on the confidence of decisions made. The health and safety questions were compared to NRS/SG and the civil service. Reference was made to the ongoing customer survey and how to support innovation and on unacceptable customer behaviour.
3.3 It was acknowledged that there were differences between directorates. The topic of change would be discussed around the strategy and operating model at the meeting today. There were actions that related to culture and how NRS used data from the previous culture audit. The proposal for a People Board was noted. The Chair acknowledged the huge amount of work done. Comments were welcomed on the direction of NRS.
3.4 It was noted that management should ensure that line management and counter signing managers were knowledgeable about processes. A question was asked if NRS had a whistle blowing policy for staff and this was confirmed. A question was asked if the negative changes related to poor communication between line management. There was confidence to improve Comms and on the set up of the People Board.
3.5 Thought was given on the action plan and if staff felt remote as a result of working from home. The points were acknowledged by the Chair on harassment and zero tolerance. There was pressure on NRS teams to deliver the strategy from forward planning, objectives and performance management. The new oracle system did not allow for a different approach and required information to be added. The issues raised were considered positive with a caution for year-to-year analysis with longitudinal trends compared. The Chair acknowledged that KPI’s could be used to monitor the culture from staff sessions.
4. Strategic Focus Session
4.1 Introduction and overview of our strategic approach
A brief update was provided on what would be addressed and what would be achieved. If there were comments and feedback not be raised at the meeting it was suggested to make contact. There was a one-page slide that captured all of the work that covered all topics. The direction of the operating model was discussed. Business engagement was explained from weekly meetings held by the Strategic Working Group (SWG). A question was asked about staff who had not attended staff sessions that would be addressed at the SWG, with a separate session for staff that were customer services focussed.
4.2 Refreshed Strategy and mission/vision
Version 7 of the Strategy was referred to. The session started with a question on whether NRS thought the level of ambition was correct for the strategy. At present the mission was aimed for 2040 and it was questioned if this should change. Comments made were:
- 2040 was a distant date
- From an organisational perspective if was felt far out and ten years to be the maximum
- NRS’s ambition should be about its reach to people and how it improved lives
- In 10-15 years’, NRS could be a data centre and an archive, but this was not evident from the strategy
- From a census viewpoint, the strategy should extend beyond the next census, with consideration about the direction of a future census
- 2040/41 could be agreed based on decisions over the next few years for a pathway towards the longer term on how NRS would conduct business
- NRS was more than the census and census setting would make a statement about NRS
- Interlinked platforms were suggested for NRS IT, which could push for a long term strategy
- An explanation for 2040 was provided against the development of an archive space
Members were asked if they were comfortable with the different timelines if the date was changed to 2035. The Chair suggested a long-term vision, to include a published 5 year strategy with a road map, a first-year interim operating model then published corporate annual reports with KPI’s etc. The Chair asked if members agreed with the strategy/vision and timelines with strategic objectives that matched a long-term vision. The following comments were noted:
- The age demographic of staff was noted to enable staff to feel part of the strategy and make it in more real time
- The use of the word strategy was noted that could set expectations
- Terminology was important with clarity for all NRS staff
- The focus should be on what NRS could do in the next 5-10 years, with a clear plan on how it would be implemented
- The long-term vision would need to be communicated through the route map and what it meant for individuals
- Visible results that could be noted by staff
- Staff would need to see where they fitted into the 5 year delivery plan
- The shared values were considered good and they reflected NRS
4.3 The Design Principles (v7) would address the designs of change for the future of NRS. Comments were sought on the ten key principles:
- It was felt that the descriptions were concise and if they were in order of importance (required when communicated to staff). It was confirmed the key principles were in order of importance
- Clarity was sought over the wording of the first key principle
The Directional Target Operating Model (TOM) was addressed and described as the long-term vision. The board members were asked for comment. The date was suggested to move to 2035 from 2040 for item three. This was accepted as a caveat and would be amended.
- Further work was required on NRS services listed at item six; it was felt that specific services should be listed. The SWG would work on services listed at item 6
- Public facing services were listed on the diagram, but there was work undertaken by NRS that was missed on the diagram
- There was a need to talk either about specific services or high-level outcomes services, based on budget and resources
- A question was asked if NRS would be a product centric organisation where the products would be featured on the diagram
- The amount of detail captured on the one page was acknowledged and that it was outward driven and felt manageable
- Box ten could only be carried out in collaboration with the business teams and should be added. NRS silos were to be replaced by an end-to-end service
- Box five was light on statistics and on the reach on archive standards. There was huge reach with the SG and analytical colleagues on the role of future statistics
- Box fifteen - Contact would be made with the SG and other analytical groups on the role statistics services in data strategy. This was acknowledged and would be taken forward by the SWG. Collaboration with Public Health Scotland (PHS) was noted.
- The potential commercial opportunities available through collaboration with other organisations was noted. NRS were not a self-sufficient organisation and relied on the SG for funding. It was suggested this should be added to the diagram
- Box one - NRS required a clear strategic direction to underpin our financial arguments when contacting the SG for funding and should be noted on the long-term corporate plan for best value
4.4 Target Operating Model
The slide addressed the IOM 1 objectives where the SWG were keen to expand to 2028. Comments were listed below:
- The five objectives were not prioritised or listed at the highest level
- The description did not cover all the objectives
- The road map would be developed at the end of the plan for objectives to be delivered
- Work would have to start immediately to develop a business case
- The activities placed at service level were queried if budget was not evidenced
- The road map would match the corporate plan on what NRS would like to do compared to what it could do
- The list from the SWG would need to be aligned with the portfolio for 2025/26
- Skills and funding would need to be included in order to deliver by 2028
- It was noted that the objectives covered all areas and funding should be an enabler rather than a blocker for the future of NRS
- There was a need to identify and stop areas of work
- KPI’s would allow staff to see how objectives were measured and they should be “SMART” Reference was made to the wording of “Digital, Data and Technology
5 Archive Services
5.1 Approach
The team achieved consistency across the three workstreams. The approach was discussed through work with the archive working group to understand the current and future needs.
5.2 Work to Date
- Assessment options were developed
- The future option was considered a long-term option
- An IOM was developed to achieve the interim option
- The key decision was about the estate.
- The long-term option was a phased TTH expansion through two phases
- The short-term practical solution was on shared commercial storage within the culture cluster
It was clarified that options were developed in advance of the options of the TTH site. There was sufficient space to expand in two phases, with an alternative site within the Culture Cluster. The question was asked if NRS would continue to accept paper records after 25 years and acknowledged that paper records would be reduced and become digital. It was also assumed that NRS would adopt a system to maximise the use of the space with a wracking system. The operating model was based on storage rather than customer access. The commitment and business case would be finalised to encourage customers to access online and offer a face-to-face option.
Action SB 57: The Director of Customer Service, Operations and Archives asked to be involved in meetings about options to access archive records either online or face to face, as records were currently accessed from search rooms. Further work was required on the TOM for archives. Discussion followed on a single site option. Owner: Deloitte colleagues and Director of Customer Service, Operations and Archives
5.3 Discussion
- The outline business case was to be the next level once the strategic business case was approved. Feedback was sought from members and the SWG
- It was acknowledged there was further work to be done now rather than in 2040, with a detailed road map developed
- Reference was made to the time frame and to the new build
- Business case modelling was required and discussed with additional commercial costs
- Risks were noted on the procurement of a design team without SG approval
- 2028 was agreed as the target date
- The challenges on the procurement of a site were noted and the 2028 date was not ambitious
5.4 The Chair advised that there was separate work ongoing within the Cluster Culture (CC) as storage was a critical issue for all CC bodies. The Scottish Government (SG) had confirmed that it would only fund projects where there was collaboration and partnership. NRS continued to be involved with other CC bodies. There were discussions on how to raise funds. The focus for a 21st century archive was on the physical environment. The strategy would have to identify how to engage with other CC bodies.
5.5 It was noted that secured capital funding could be difficult for collaborative work by 2028 and 2030 was a more realistic time frame. Questions were asked if the business case included funding for digital, how the business case evolved and whether revenue had been factored into the digital area. It was confirmed that all points were included in the narrative of the business case. Recharging was not included in the Strategic Outline Case (SOC). A decision was noted that the date of 2028 should be moved out to 2030.
Decision 1 Decision was made to move the date of 2028 out to 2030 due to collaborative funding. Owner - The Chair
5.6 The Chair highlighted a number of points about the (SOC). There was a need to address the operating model for the future and for a 21st century archive. There were concerns around the future vision. A request was made to see the road map and how it would manage risks. It was acknowledged that a lot of good work had been done with possible financial constraints. A request was made to explore future funding. All Deloitte colleagues were thanked for the all the work completed to date, including the Project Manager which had moved the organisation on in a short timescale.
Action SB 58: Owner - All Strategic Board members The Chair acknowledged the funding issue and suggested future meetings with the group to look at creative ways of funding to then put together a package for funding.
6. Digital
6.1 Digital Strategy
The key part of the overall transformation was the digital strategy roadmap. Feedback had been taken on board at an earlier Strategic Board. The request was for the Strategic Board and Executive Management Board to endorse the strategy and take it to the next stage then re-present it to both boards to be signed off. The slides presented differentiated between digital and IT.
6.2 Thoughts were sought on the digital strategy in addition to the work on the wider organisational strategy. The following concerns were noted:
- It was a large transformation
- the inclusion of a digital preservation system,
- registrations/statistical work,
- prior visualisation work done on the strategy
There was a risk, of focus on isolated areas of work, without the overall architectural vision for NRS.
6.3 Infrastructure Roadmap
The Chair asked what type of architectural would be required before the other transformations. An options paper would be produced and would be shared with members at a future meeting. The Interim Operation Model (IOM) would move from the strategy and action plan to delivery with the Digital Strategic Board to oversee it. Rather than govern by subject matter it was suggested to govern by performance and delivery. Suggestions included that the technology road map should have further individual products, with annual product plans and teams for products and services. A move to Cloud would enable NRS to understand the cost of various IT services.
6.4 Work had been initiated on the production of a risk heat map. NRS were aware of the technology held by its estate. Registration was an area for concern on how it delivered across public service networks to local authorities. It was noted that Pinpoints were different from risk points and the distinction was noted. The next steps would be to draft a Management Information dashboard for the NRS estate. The Chair acknowledged the amount of work that had gone into the development of the roadmap and it was considered an excellent piece of work.
7. Delivery Planning
7.1 Due to timing it was agreed to pass on this agenda item to be addressed at a later board meeting.
8. AOB
8.1 There was no further business to be discussed
9. Date of Next Meeting and close – 24 June 2025
9.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 24 June 2025 where consideration would be given for a workshop approach to reflect on the strategy. Fees, Charges and Income would also be added to the agenda. The Chair thanked everyone and noted it was good to see a clear vision for the organisation.
