1. The Law Society Non-Regulatory Transformation Budget Re-Prioritisation Update and Next Steps Annex A

2. Agenda What questions we are trying to answer – and why What we originally set out to do to answer these questions Where we are currently - and what the gaps are What our plan, approach and staffing to fill these gaps could be This paper seeks to facilitate our conversation this morning around the following…

3. Key Questions Recap on questions we are trying to answer and why The current situation with regard to budget approval is as follows… To achieve the above, we defined the following 3 Key Questions… Question 1 - What activities are we planning to spend time and money on – what will they deliver and how much effort and cost does each consume?** Question 2 - Why are these the right activities to be investing in during 2006? Question 3 - What are the priorities – and what changes do we recommend to current 2006 plan? (e.g. “accelerate”, “continue as-is”, “re-scope in some way” or “stop”) Budget submitted to Council (Noted – but not yet Approved) In order to conclude 2006 approval and identify Quick Wins, it has been agreed that more clarity is needed on what activities we are investing in and the priorities In addition to 2006 Quick Wins, there is also recognition that early transparency of activities and cost/effort will be a vital input to planning and thinking for longer term ** - This sort of information will also be a great starting point for (a) understanding fit with Section 47 & (b) what needs to change to achieve longer term Vision

4. Approach Taken so far What we set out to do and how We sought to achieve the answers to these Key Questions through the following four step process…. Capture activities in the attached template from each HBU in Representation and Law Reform, Commercial Services and Strategic Policy Capture the rationale for each of these activities (also in the attached template) Capture the recommendation for each activity (e.g. accelerate, continue as is, re- scope, stop, etc.) Aggregate and build on the recommendations across the three Directorates and present them to the CGB for approval ….NB : During the process it became apparent that overhead constituted 50% of cost in some areas. Therefore, we extended the above process to include Supporting Functions (e.g. ICT) – on the assumption that at least some of their costs must be discretionary - and therefore a potentially important focus for Quick Wins

5. Current Status Where we are currently – and what the gaps are NB : As mentioned previously, the process with Supporting Services did not start as early as for the Front Line BUs – which is a key reason for the difference in status on the above. ElementCurrent Achievements Current Gaps and Issues Articulating activities Attempt made by all Front Line HBUs to articulate their activities The activity descriptions vary significantly in their level of detail and specificity - in terms of (a) what the activities are (b) why we are doing them and (c) what tangible outcomes we expect them to achieve Supporting Functions have yet to provide this info Assessing Cost and Effort Attempt made by most Front Line HBUs to articulate effort and cost by activity Few Front Line HBUs have been able to successfully quantify effort and cost by activity (even in broad brush terms) Very few to none have been able to quantify their draw on supporting services (e.g. Research, ICT support, etc.) Supporting Services have not provided costs on an activity basis – although a cost break down on “types of cost” has been provided. Providing Priorities and Recommend- ations Attempt made by all Front Line HBUs to make recommendations (accelerate, continue, re-scope, stop) The recommendations lack information on the following : (a) the budgetary or staffing impact which results if we make the change – e.g. what resource is freed up (b) what we gain or lose by taking this recommendation – in terms of tangible outcomes/value delivered (c) what it will take to achieve the recommendation – effort, time, etc. The recommendations, for the most part, are fairly marginal in terms of their likely impact. (Although lack of the above data does not make it immediately apparent to those who do not know the areas well.) Supporting Services have not made recommendations yet as part of this process.

6. Forward Plan - Draft How we might take this forward 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303112345678910 March April Clearly Articulate Activities Clearly Articulate Cost, Effort & Value Recommend Action Sub-Group Planning & Status Sub-Group Status Update Sub-Group Review/Approve Recommendations Sub-Group Status Update SCOPE :  This exercise will include Front Line and Supporting Services (Non-Reg)  This exercise does not include re-drafting of Corporate/Business Plans (more detail – comes later)  This exercise does not include final detail on all recommendations. Some may require more detailed analysis to further validate (but only where the sub-group decide they are worth pursuing) Draft/Indicative Timetable

7. Prioritisation Timetable Feb/ March April W/C 27 W/C 6 W/C 13 W/C 20 W/C 27 W/C 3 W/C 10 W/C 17 W/C 24 Clearly articulate activities Clearly articulate cost and value Recommend action to CGB 26 April

8. Forward Plan - Draft What Skills and Capabilities do we need? We need the following skills and capabilities to succeed…. 1.Good knowledge and experience of the overall Non-Regulatory business 2.Good knowledge and experience of the figures 3.Strong, compelling and objective challenge across Front Line and Supporting Services in terms of the following questions : –What we are doing? –Why we are doing it? –What are the alternative ways of doing it? (more effective/efficient, etc.) 4.Capability to facilitate/develop quality and consistency in terms of : structure, information and detail in the outputs produced by all areas 5.Capability to aggregate & summarise the results and develop clear/simple yet robust recommendations (looking across the business not just in silos) The Head of Finance and Director of Communications can provide (1) and (2) in their entirety – but have indicated that further support is needed to help with (3), (4) and (5)