Economic Outcomes Programme
Note of Meeting of the Project Board
held on 9th May 2012 in Atlantic Quay, Glasgow
Present
Keith Winter, Fife Council / SOLACE (Chair); Bryan McGrath, Scottish
Borders Council / SLAED; Robin Presswood, Fife Council / SLAED; Karen
Jackson, Karen Watt and Marieli Cole, Scottish Government; Martin Wight,
Scottish Enterprise; Kateryna McKinnon, Highlands & islands Enterprise; and
Mark McAteer and Andrew McGuire, Improvement Service;
Apologies
Alan McGregor, University of Glasgow / SDS / EDAS; and Stuart Patrick,
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.
Action
1.
Welcome / Introductions
It was also agreed that Keith Winter, in his capacity as
SOLACE lead for economic development, should chair the
Project Board.
Keith welcomed colleagues to the 1st meeting of the
Project Board.
Following introductions, a brief overview of the background
and aims of the Economic Outcomes Programme was
provided.
2.
Role of the Project Board
Consideration was given to a paper (previously circulated),
which set out the proposed role, responsibilities and
membership of the Project Board.
The paper indicated that the Project Board would advise
on the overall strategic direction of the Economic
Outcomes programme, as well as on areas such as key
activities and outputs. The Project Board will meet three
times per year.
The paper also set out the types of input expected of
Project Board members, which included providing
challenge and constructive criticism, as well as acting as
advocates for the programme.
Following discussion, the report was approved subject to a
1
Action
number of points of clarification / amendment, as follows:-
3.

It was confirmed that the project had no discrete
budget, per se, as the funding would be used to cover
staffing costs. However, levering in in-kind support via
the programme staff and Project Board members for
specific programme initiatives would be an important
aspect. It was also noted that consideration ought to
be given to this issue in the context of longer-term
sustainability beyond the agreed two year funding
period.

Line management of the two Programme staff would
operate via IS internal structures.

It was agreed that SDS should be invited to provide a
representative on the Project Board from their AMcG /KW
management team (in addition to Alan McGregor’s to contact
input as an SDS Board member).
SDS& FSB

It was agreed that the Federation of Small Businesses
should be invited to provide a representative on the
Project Board.
Implementation Programme
A paper (previously circulated) setting out a range of
potential workstreams for the Economic Outcomes
Programme was considered.
It was noted that a number of the outputs had been
specified as part of the funding contract agreed by the IS
and the Scottish Government.
Other outputs were
potential areas of work that could additionally be
incorporated into the programme. It was also noted that a
degree of prioritisation would be required given the
comparatively limited resources available.
As part of the discussion, it was suggested that a coordination role would be appropriate on some occasions
rather than the programme necessarily always having to
be involved in direct delivery. The importance of levering
in additional in-kind support and the overall sustainability
of the programme beyond the two year funding were again
reiterated.
It was agreed that hands-on support to Councils /
2
Action
partnerships in implementing the key messages from the
Improvement Guide should be a core element of the
programme. Discussion took place on how this could best
be prioritised given the limited resource, including the
option of potentially focusing on regional groupings. It was
agreed that a short prospectus and invitation to engage
with the Programme should be drafted for sending to all
Councils.
Project Board members would have an IS to draft /
circulate
opportunity to comment on the draft document prior to it for Board
being issued. This would be developed and issued in members
advance of the programme staff being in post.
comment
Other workstreams agreed included work with Elected
Members, development of further Case Studies,
establishment of a Peer Review Network and open
workshop events.
Brief discussion also took place concerning support to
SLAED in order to assist with reviewing and embedding
use of its indicators framework.
Finally, a project involving the CLES (Centre for Local
Economic Strategies) and Architecture & Design Scotland
was briefly discussed. This is a project that has already
levered in an additional small resource (£10k) and will
focus on particular challenges facing three towns across
Scotland (Irvine, Paisley and Leven).
It was agreed that a more detailed programme plan was
required and that this should be an early priority for the
new Economic Outcomes Senior Manager.
The
Programme Plan will be presented for consideration to the
next meeting of the Project Board.
4.
IS
Staffing Arrangements
A paper (previously circulated) setting out the Programme
staffing arrangements was considered.
The paper
included detailed job descriptions for two posts – an
Economic Outcomes Senior Manager and an Economic
Outcomes Project Officer.
Following discussion, it was agreed to shift the
requirement for ‘a strong working knowledge of Scotland’s
economic development network’ from ‘essential’ to
‘desirable’ in both posts.
Action
3
It was noted that the posts would be advertised on the IS
website and on the myjobscotland website. EDAS, IED
and SLAED would also be asked to highlight the vacancies
to their members. Martin Wight also offered to advertise
the jobs via SE’s internal vacancy system.
IS
It was noted that the posts would now be advertised as
soon as possible.
5.
Communications & Engagement
A first draft Communications & Engagement Plan
(previously circulated) was considered by the Project
Board.
It was agreed that effective communication with /
engagement of key stakeholders would be essential to the
success of the Programme. The document set out a
number of key messages, audiences and communications
channels. Additional suggestions made by Project Board
members included targeting MSPs and European partners.
It was noted that the Economic Outcomes Senior Manager
would be responsible for continuously updating the plan
and for ensuring its effective delivery.
It was also agreed that the continuously updated
Communications & Engagement Plan should be a
standing item on project Board agendas.
6.
IS
Risk Register
A Programme Risk Register (previously circulated) was
considered. It was agreed that anticipating and managing
risks would be essential to good overall management of
the programme.
Project Board members were generally in agreement with
the content of the Risk Register and requested that it
should also be a standing item on Project Board agendas.
7.
IS
Next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Project Board
should be held in early Autumn 2012. The IS would
canvas Board members for suitable dates nearer the time.
Keith closed the meeting and thanked all for their input.
4
IS
IS