What mattered most at the outset was language and confidence.

“A lot of what we do is also self‑evaluation, but we might not call it self‑evaluation. And if you start to bamboozle people with the phrase, they might not see themselves in it. Sometimes you have to reframe it.”

Rather than introducing self‑evaluation as a new or specialist activity, the work deliberately reframed it as something that services were already doing, often under different labels such as:

• performance reporting
• scrutiny reporting
• improvement activity
• thematic reviews

The risk identified early on was that the term “self‑evaluation” could alienate or intimidate services if it was presented as a new burden or technical requirement. Reframing helped people see themselves in the work and reduced resistance. [

Key principle:

Start by broadening the definition before introducing any framework or diagnostic.

The starting point was deliberately personal and familiar:

“I started from what was familiar to me… and from there I realised I needed to branch out. But that starting somewhere helped me get my head round where we were.”

• initial reflection focused on service areas closest to the lead’s own professional background
• early conversations were informal, exploratory and relational

This created momentum without waiting for a “perfect” corporate view. Only after this initial sense‑making did the work intentionally widen out across the council.

Key principle:

Start somewhere, learn, then follow everywhere.

“My starting point was the council leadership team… but what I really wanted was for heads of service to feel ownership with their own teams…. rather than me going to the next layer, the ask was for heads of service to go and speak with their management teams.”

The first formal engagement point was the Council Leadership Team (Chief Executive, Deputies, Heads of Service). This was a strategic choice designed to:

• build shared understanding of the national direction
• surface readiness and variation
• place ownership with Heads of Service rather than central teams

Rather than cascading centrally, Heads of Service were asked to engage their own management teams and gather insight from within their service areas. This reinforced accountability and avoided positioning the work as “someone else’s project”.

Key principle:

Ownership sits best where improvement will actually happen.

“There was a real risk that we’d get ourselves tied in knots in surveying and reviewing everything to the nth degree.”

“What we really needed was to have our eye on the horizon and ask: how does what we have translate into the new framework, and where might the gaps be?”

A generic, high‑level survey was designed to help services describe:

• what approaches to self‑evaluation already existed
• how consistent or varied these were within service areas
• where strengths and gaps might lie

Importantly, the survey was not intended to capture exhaustive detail. Over time, the lead reflected that there was a real risk of “tying the organisation in knots” by going too granular too early. What mattered more was:

• spotting patterns
• understanding readiness
• identifying translation issues into a future national framework

Key principle:

Close enough to see the shapes and patterns is good enough to move forward.

“What comes back from education comes back in one format. What comes back from other areas comes back in a slightly different format… and that’s okay… It might not be called self‑evaluation, but it’s something — and that’s really important”

Returns varied significantly by service area:

• education‑related services often responded in familiar self‑evaluation formats
• other services returned evidence linked to Audit Scotland, Best Value or statutory reporting

Rather than forcing consistency, the analysis stayed broad‑minded, focusing on what the information revealed about:

• existing assets
• blind spots
• cultural readiness

This avoided boxing evidence into a narrow definition and reinforced the idea that self‑evaluation already existed in many forms.

“I’m really pleased I didn’t come up with the ‘what’s next’. The solutions came from the council leadership team. That was more powerful than anything I could have imposed.”

A notable feature of this case is that solutions were not pre‑designed by the lead. Instead:

• themes and priorities emerged through leadership discussion
• proposals for next steps came from the Council Leadership Team itself

This included agreement to:

• establish a cross‑council steering group
• use that group as champions and catalysts, not compliance monitors
• embed leadership beyond one individual, even where national expertise existed

This was described as more powerful than a centrally imposed plan.

Key principle:

Don’t go into the exercise thinking you know the outcome.

A recurring concern was the risk that self‑evaluation could become:

• another reporting hoop
• something done for committees rather than for improvement

This prompted explicit reflection on:

• the role of scrutiny committees
• how elected members might be brought into a self‑improving system
• how governance could support learning rather than reinforce performative compliance

The emphasis was on stewardship of improvement, not assurance theatre.

“Governance can very easily drift into compliance if you’re not careful.”

“I worry that we go through the hoops of what’s required of scrutiny committees rather than because it helps us understand what we need to do differently to improve.”

Not all services found this easy. Some initially saw the work as competing with operational pressures. Progress came through:

• meeting people where they were
• helping them recognise existing evaluation activity
• patience rather than escalation

This reinforced the importance of reframing and relational leadership as part of the method.

“I see this as our baseline. I wouldn’t want it to just get put on the shelf…. It’s not the be‑all and end‑all — it tells you where you need to go.”

The work is viewed as a baseline, not a one‑off exercise. There is a clear intention to:

• revisit and update understanding over time
• use it to track progress
• maintain a shared overview across diverse service activity

The exercise is explicitly not an end in itself.