⚿ NPS-GMP — RESTRICTED — TRAINING USE ONLY — NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Programme Brief · NPS-GMP-PID-001 · March 2025

Grant Application
Modernisation
Programme

You are the newly onboarded Business Analysis team at Nexus Public Services. The National Audit Office has found systemic failures. The Minister wants answers. The clock is running.

NEXUS PUBLIC SERVICES ARM'S-LENGTH GOVT BODY 1,200 STAFF · 4 OFFICES £480M GRANT BUDGET 12-MONTH MANDATE
Section 1 · The Problem
A system that is failing citizens

Nexus Public Services administers government grant schemes on behalf of the Department for Communities and Economic Resilience. It processes approximately 61,000 applications per year across four regional offices — London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Edinburgh — with a combined annual grant budget of £480 million.

A National Audit Office review conducted in November 2024 found that the grant administration process is operating significantly below acceptable standards. The review identified systemic failures in processing efficiency, digital accessibility, and internal governance that place both the organisation's reputation and the integrity of public grant distribution at risk.

The Minister for Communities has issued a formal direction. The Chief Executive has committed to a 12-month transformation timeline. You are the BA team tasked with making that happen.

47
Average processing days
Target: 20 days
38%
Application abandonment rate
Target: below 15%
62%
Drop-off at Step 7 (evidence upload)
Single point of failure
14%
Applications meeting 20-day target
Target: 95%
3
Separate process variants across regions
Should be: 1 standard
52%
Citizen satisfaction score
Benchmark: 74%

Section 2 · Onboarding Documents
Your Week 1 briefing pack

The following documents have been placed in your Nexus onboarding folder. Read them carefully. They are real documents and should be treated as such.

National Audit Office — Extract from Performance Review HC 847
RESTRICTED · December 2024

The grant administration process at Nexus lacks standardisation across regional offices, resulting in inconsistent outcomes for applicants. Processing times averaged 47 days against a published target of 20 days. Application abandonment rates of 38% suggest significant friction in the current applicant journey.

The Committee identified seven principal findings, including critical failures in processing efficiency and digital accessibility. The Birmingham regional office has operated a GranTrack workaround since 2021 — unbeknown to London HQ. Manual re-keying between GranTrack and FinLedger is estimated to add 8–12 days to every application.

The Committee recommends a full process review and digitisation programme within 12 months, with progress reported to the Public Accounts Committee at the six-month point. Failure to demonstrate credible progress may result in administrative transfer of grant functions to an alternative delivery body.

📊 GranTrack Data Snapshot — Week 1 Briefing (Full access granted Week 6)
MetricCurrent PositionTarget
Average grant processing time47 days20 days
Application abandonment rate38%Below 15%
Applications received per month~3,400
Applications processed on time14%95%
Regional process variants3 (undocumented)1 standard
Staff handling queries by phone62 FTE · 40 min avg per call
Customer satisfaction score52%74% (benchmark)
GranTrack/FinLedger delay8–12 days per application0 days
📉 CitizenConnect — Step-Level Abandonment Data (12 months)
StepDescriptionUsers EnteringUsers CompletingAbandonment
Step 1Eligibility checker61,00058,4204.2%
Step 2Personal details58,42056,9402.5%
Step 3Grant scheme selection56,94055,1803.1%
Step 4Organisation / household info55,18053,8202.5%
Step 5Project or need description53,82051,6404.1%
Step 6Requested amount51,64050,2802.6%
Step 7Evidence upload50,28019,10862.0% ← CRITICAL
Step 8Declaration and submit19,10818,9400.9%

Section 3 · Programme Scope
What is — and is not — your remit

Understanding scope boundaries is one of the first things a BA must establish. Everything below has been agreed by the Programme Board. Scope changes require formal approval.

IN SCOPE
  • End-to-end redesign of the citizen grant application journey
  • Integration between GranTrack and FinLedger (eliminating manual re-keying)
  • Redesign of CitizenConnect evidence upload (Step 7) including save-and-return
  • Assisted-digital (telephone) channel for low-digital-literacy citizens
  • Standardisation of grant processing workflow across all four offices
  • Stage-level processing time tracking and real-time performance dashboard
  • Audit trail capability providing tamper-proof decision records
  • WCAG 2.1 AA compliance across all citizen-facing touchpoints
  • Staff training and change management for adoption
OUT OF SCOPE
  • Replacement of GranTrack as the core case management system
  • Changes to grant scheme eligibility criteria or policy (DCER responsibility)
  • Implementation of a new financial management system to replace FinLedger
  • Procurement of new grant schemes not in the current Nexus portfolio
  • Any changes to Nexus organisational structure or regional headcount
Constraint to note A 2009 legal opinion requires wet-ink signatures on applications for grants over £250,000 — affecting approximately 22% of applications by value. A new legal opinion (estimated 8–12 weeks) is required before full digital processing can be achieved for this cohort.

Section 4 · Stakeholder Cast
The nine people you need to navigate

Each stakeholder has a distinct personality, motivation, and relationship with the programme. How you engage with them will determine whether your analysis is trusted. Your first task is to identify where each sits on a power/interest grid.

Margaret Okafor
Chief Executive Officer
CHAMPION
Influence: High · Interest: High
Decisive, politically astute. Respects concise, evidence-based presentations. Will shut down anyone who wastes her time.
James Whitfield
Director of Operations
RESISTOR
Influence: High · Interest: High
Protective of his teams. Believes the current process works "well enough." Sees the BA team as a threat.
Priya Sharma
Director of Digital & Technology
SPONSOR
Influence: High · Interest: High
Your main point of contact. Enthusiastic but occasionally over-promises. Manage her expectations carefully.
Colin Marsh
Head of Finance & Compliance
GATEKEEPER
Influence: High · Interest: Medium
Has veto power on anything touching payment flows. Detail-obsessed. Bring a risk register to every meeting.
Yemi Adeyemi
Ministerial Liaison (DCER)
INTERESTED PARTY
Influence: Medium · Interest: High
Represents shifting political priorities. Get everything in writing. What he says today may change tomorrow.
Sandra Hewitt
Head of Grant Operations, Birmingham
KEY SME
Influence: Medium · Interest: High
22 years of frontline knowledge. Has been ignored in previous transformation attempts. Listen properly.
Danny Tran
IT Systems Lead (GranTrack)
TECHNICAL GATEKEEPER
Influence: Medium · Interest: Medium
Technically brilliant, overworked. Speaks in specifics. Don't ask vague questions — do your homework first.
Fiona Blake
Head of People & Change
CHANGE PARTNER
Influence: Medium · Interest: Medium
Focused on staff wellbeing. Working with three trade unions who have raised formal concerns. Bring her in early.
Alan Foster
NAO Representative (Observer)
EXTERNAL SCRUTINEER
Influence: High · Interest: Low
Neutral, precise, watches everything. Never misrepresent progress. He writes reports that go to the minister.
10-Week Programme Arc

What you will
build — and become

Three tracks run simultaneously every week: BA theory and practice, Nexus project work, and career readiness. By Week 10 you have a complete portfolio and interview answers grounded in real project experience.

Programme Structure
10 weeks · 10 deliverables · 1 complete portfolio
Week Phase Theme Key Deliverable Career Focus
W01FoundationsInduction & Initial ScopingInitial Scope StatementPersonal brand & LinkedIn headline
W02FoundationsStakeholder Identification & MappingStakeholder Register & Communication PlanCV structure & first draft
W03FoundationsElicitation: Understanding the As-IsElicitation Plan & As-Is Findings SummaryTransferable skills mapping
W04FoundationsRequirements DocumentationBusiness Requirements Document v0.1Job market navigation & JD analysis
W05Core SkillsProcess Analysis & ModellingAs-Is Process Maps & Pain Point LogLinkedIn profile deep-dive
W06Core SkillsData Analysis for BAsData Analysis ReportInterview story-crafting
W07Core SkillsBusiness Case DevelopmentDraft Business Case with Options AppraisalSTAR / PAR answer bank
W08Core SkillsAgile & Waterfall DeliveryPrioritised Backlog & Delivery ApproachMethodology conversations
W09AdvancedSolution Design & WireframingAnnotated Wireframes with TraceabilityPortfolio building & documentation
W10AdvancedTesting, UAT & Change ManagementUAT Plan · Test Scripts · Defect Log · Change ImpactCover letters for target roles
Portfolio guidance Every deliverable you produce during this programme is real portfolio evidence. Treat every document as if it will be reviewed by a hiring manager — because eventually, it will be. Save everything. Add a brief context note to each document explaining what it was for, what problem it addressed, and what you decided.
SELECT WEEK TO ACCESS
🔐 ENTER WEEK CODE:
🔐

Teacher Dashboard

Enter the facilitator password to access cohort management tools and week codes.

Incorrect password. Try again.

Facilitator Dashboard

Nexus BA Programme · NPS-GMP · Training Use Only

Week Unlock Codes — release one per week

Weekly Trigger Events — facilitator guidance

Assessment touchpoints

WEEK 4
Peer review of BRD
Learners review each other's requirements documents against the provided checklist. Focus feedback on: testability of requirements, correct functional/NFR distinction, evidence-traceability.
WEEK 7
Facilitator feedback on business case
Score against rubric covering: structure (options clearly defined), evidence (data from Weeks 3–6 used), and stakeholder awareness (does it address Colin Marsh's compliance concerns?).
WEEK 10
Capstone portfolio review
Learners compile all deliverables into a handover pack. Assess on completeness, internal consistency (do requirements trace through to UAT?), and professional presentation quality.

Playing the characters

Facilitator note When playing stakeholders in roleplay exercises, do not break character to offer hints. If James Whitfield would be difficult, be difficult. If Yemi Adeyemi would be vague, be vague. Triggers work best when introduced after learners have already committed some work to a direction — changing course mid-week is harder and more instructive.
MY WORKBOOK · NPS-GMP BA PROGRAMME

Your working notes

Type your analysis, findings, and answers here as you work through each week. Your notes save automatically in your browser. Download a full copy at any time.

Notes completed
0%