Confidential · Internal Workshop Use Only
Welcome & Context Setting
FREF Postgraduate Bursary Programme
This opening slide sets the context for why the evaluation was done and how the team arrived at the findings and recommendations.
Thursday 13 March 2026 · 11:30 – 13:00 · Working Session (Hybrid)
Purpose of the Evaluation
- Assess the 2025 pilot implementation across programme delivery, operations and stakeholder experience
- Identify what worked well, what constrained outcomes, and where execution drifted from design
- Provide practical recommendations to strengthen delivery quality, consistency and scale readiness for 2026
Methodology / Process
- Document and process review across the full programme lifecycle
- Stakeholder consultations with Student Advancement, M&E, Leadership, Finance, universities and service partners
- Synthesis of findings into themes, root-cause insights and prioritised recommendations
Workshop Agenda
What we're here to do
Session Purpose
- Build a shared understanding of what worked and what needs to change
- Prioritise the 7 recommendations: what's actionable in 30 days vs what needs planning
- Assign named owners for each priority action
- Agree a 30-day action plan and check-in rhythm
By End of Session
Shared context and language across all teams
Prioritised recommendation list (DO NOW / PLAN / PARK)
Action plan with named owners and 30-day deadlines
Agreed check-in rhythm for follow-through
Workshop Agenda
Programme: 13 March
Welcome and Context
Set objectives, align on session outcomes, and confirm flow for the workshop.
✓ Shared context established
Team Reflections and Additional Insights
Student Advancement, Systems and Finance, Service Providers, Universities, and M&E inputs on what resonates, what is missing, and what needs refinement.
✓ Team perspectives and add-on insights captured
Risk Areas and Interactive Rating
Review risk descriptions and classify each risk as High, Medium, or Low. Mitigations are discussion points.
✓ Aligned risk view across the team
Recommendations and Prioritisation
Walk through recommendations and agree what is DO NOW, PLAN, and PARK.
✓ Prioritised recommendation list confirmed
Close-Out Questions and Checklist
Confirm owners, first next actions, timelines, and follow-up rhythm.
✓ Session outcomes validated and committed
Thank You and Next Steps
Final alignment, appreciation, and close.
✓ Team aligned on immediate next steps
What Worked · 1 of 2
The 2025 pilot was a genuine proof of concept
Name these strengths explicitly before turning to what needs to improve. They're real.
Programme model validated
The integrated financial and wraparound support model was operationally viable across three universities and 173 students in its first full implementation cycle. This is a meaningful achievement.
Financial controls are robust
Disbursements were structured, auditable, and multi-layered. The finance team expressed high confidence that funds were not disbursed incorrectly. Controls are strong enough to withstand donor scrutiny. 4.2.3
Strong adaptive management
The team consistently responded to emerging challenges, accommodation escalations, provider gaps, underspend reallocation, with effective problem-solving under pressure. 4.1.5
Student impact was real and material
Students consistently described the programme as life-changing. Tuition clearance, device provision, and academic support enabled continued study that would otherwise have been impossible. 4.5.3
What Worked · 2 of 2
Institutional learning is already happening
Next section: we move from strengths into constraints, starting with Student Advancement and cohort stability.
SOPs being formalised
Disbursement flows, refunds, and reallocations are being documented. A communications plan and earlier recruitment shifts are underway. The 2025 pressures are informing structural responses, not just informal reflection. 4.1.7
University relationships are strong
Across all three institutions, Feenix was viewed as a responsive and cooperative partner. Fee clearance worked. Dedicated contacts enabled fast response when payments were confirmed. 4.4.1
Device provision exceeded expectations
Students described laptop provision as a major academic enabler. One student noted it was of higher quality than devices used by peers in technically demanding programmes. 4.5.3
Exceeded the 150-student target
173 students supported vs the 150 target. Underspend on tuition (lower actual costs than budgeted) was intelligently reallocated to clear historical debt and support an additional short-term cohort, with donor approval.
01 · Student Advancement & Bursary · 1 of 3
Cohort instability was the defining challenge
"Confirmation" was not a clean milestone, it was a prolonged, ongoing phase. 4.1.1
Expected
Students sign agreements → cohort is confirmed → disbursement begins. A once-off intake process with a clear milestone.
Reality
Significant drop-off even after agreements were signed, primarily students switching to bursaries offering direct cash. Cohort stability only became clear much later, forcing continuous recruitment, verification, and replenishment. 5.1
Buffer list was essential
Maintaining a buffer list and treating recruitment as an ongoing rather than discrete process became necessary, informed by historical data on attrition and ineligibility patterns.
Competing bursaries = opt-out risk
Students withdrew after signing when offered direct cash disbursements by competing programmes. The bursary model (clearing institutional debt) is less immediately visible to students, a structural vulnerability at intake. 4.2.1
01 · Student Advancement & Bursary · 2 of 3
Recruitment was the most resource-intensive phase
High volumes, narrow eligibility
Application volumes were high, but strict eligibility criteria significantly narrowed the qualifying pool. Extensive screening, verification, and replacement was required throughout the cycle, not just at intake. 4.2.1
Postgrads needed more engagement than expected
Initial assumptions were that postgraduate cohorts would require minimal engagement. The opposite was true, students actively sought communication, reassurance, and visibility from programme staff. Monthly check-ins, academic monitoring, and escalation management were all required at scale.
Double-dipping required active verification
Ongoing verification processes revealed students with overlapping funding arrangements, necessitating further recruitment and cohort adjustments. This added to an already intensive administrative load.
Key insight
Postgraduate funding environments are fluid, not fixed. Recruitment is not a phase that ends, it is an ongoing programme function that requires dedicated capacity and systems. 4.1.1
01 · Student Advancement & Bursary · 3 of 3
Accommodation delays and capacity constraints
Accommodation payments created relationship strain
Where off-campus accommodation charges were not reflected on university statements, payments were delayed. Students became anxious and relationships became strained, requiring direct landlord engagement and exceptional disbursement adjustments. 4.2.1
Timeline misalignment with institutions
Accommodation operates on separate administrative timelines from tuition clearance. Early, coordinated confirmation is required, but wasn't consistently available, leading to students facing housing uncertainty despite being funded. 4.4.2
Capacity was consistently stretched
The scale and intensity of recruitment, administration, engagement, and coordination exceeded initial capacity assumptions. This required extended working hours and cross-team support at peak periods. 4.1.4
Structural response
Capacity pressure acted as a catalyst. The organisation began separating bursary administration from student support functions, adding resourcing and restructuring. An important step, but it came reactively, not proactively.
Team Reflection Add-on
Additional insights from Student Advancement team
Capture what resonates, what is missing, and what needs adjustment before recommendations.
02 · Systems & Finance · 1 of 3
Disbursement: a structured strength
The disbursement process was controlled, auditable, and multi-layered. A genuine strength. 4.2.2
What the process included
- Updated fee statements collected and verified before each disbursement
- Detailed debt analysis: separating historical debt from current-year charges
- Exclusion of non-eligible items (e.g. laptops already funded elsewhere)
- Multi-stage approval process, internal finance + trustee oversight
- Payments released within 1–2 days once approvals complete
Systems as integrity control
Systems was not just automating a pipeline, it was actively protecting programme integrity through reconciliation and filtering. This is essential, and it worked.
Scale achieved
Disbursement processing was not identified as a scalability constraint. The core infrastructure was sufficiently robust. The scaling risk sits upstream, in onboarding and moderation capacity, not in payment execution itself. 4.2.2
Internally developed, and adaptive
Systems were built internally by a relatively young team. This enabled flexibility and responsiveness. The team demonstrated strong ownership and clear commitment to improving based on Year 1 learning.
02 · Systems & Finance · 2 of 3
University bottlenecks and the manual verification load
Fee statements were the critical bottleneck
University responsiveness in providing updated fee statements was the most consistent constraint. Statement turnaround times could consume most of a month, and disbursement preparation had to start early just to absorb this lag. 4.1.2
Manual analysis = operational risk
Pre-disbursement verification required intensive manual work: separating historical vs current debt, differentiating tuition from accommodation, removing non-qualifying charges. Necessary, but time-consuming and sensitive during peak periods. 4.1.3
Downstream tracking was harder than upstream
Initial systems focused on allocation rather than downstream tracking. Once resources were distributed, confirming whether they'd been received, delayed, or were outstanding proved more complex than anticipated. Tracking tools had to be progressively enhanced throughout the year. 4.2.2
Service provider integration gaps
Food voucher delays and weak provider communication created uncertainty. Students reported not receiving expected resources while provider confirmation was delayed. Internal allocation was correct, the gap was in confirming downstream delivery. 4.2.2
02 · Systems & Finance · 3 of 3
R28m → R95m: a step-change in complexity
R28m
Funds managed in 2024
~R95m
Funds managed in 2025
Systems weren't ready for this scale
Accounting infrastructure and reporting workflows had not fully matured for this level of activity. Finance staff relied on manual processes and spreadsheets, "too manual and too risky" at scale. 4.2.3
Early role clarity issues
Early implementation was marked by unclear ownership around reconciliation inputs and approval sequencing between teams. This caused payment delays, not because of system failure, but because of process ambiguity at handover points. 4.2.3
Improvements are underway
New accounting provider with nonprofit expertise is being onboarded. Finance roles are being restructured. Internal system integration and automation are being invested in. The direction is right, but the work is not done.
Without further strengthening, expansion = risk
Leadership recognised clearly: future programme expansion without system strengthening would introduce significant operational risk. The finance function is performing under current conditions, but headroom is limited. 4.2.3
Team Reflection Add-on
Additional insights from Systems and Finance team
Capture process friction points, ownership gaps, and fast system fixes.
03 · Service Providers · 1 of 2
Providers were capable and willing to adapt
The problem wasn't provider capability. It was programme integration and activation. 4.3.4
Tutoring provider adapted to postgrad needs
Demonstrated flexibility in sourcing specialised academic support, including niche tutors for uncommon fields like Entomology. Developing live dashboards for real-time student engagement tracking. 4.3.1
Mental health partner had structured delivery
Described structured monitoring processes and emphasised reliance on clear cohort information and early engagement to initiate contact. When properly activated and given updated data, they delivered. 4.3.1
Uptake was consistently low
Services were not consistently or proactively communicated to students, particularly early in the cycle. Limited awareness meant students who most needed support were often not engaging with it. 4.3.2
Generic models didn't fit postgrad needs
Students perceived tutoring support as "generic" or "automated." Mental health support response timing didn't align with moments of acute need. The relevance gap reduced uptake, not provider disengagement. 6.3
03 · Service Providers · 2 of 2
Integration risk, not capability risk
Provider perspective
Confident in delivery processes and responsiveness when engaged. Believe they are delivering what the programme needs. Waiting for activation and updated data from Feenix.
Internal team perspective
Dissatisfied with uptake and overall impact. Mental health engagement and sustained tutoring utilisation both fell short. Students are not getting the value the programme intended. 4.3.3
Root Cause
The gap stems from integration factors: timing of student onboarding into support services, clarity of communication to students, feedback loops between providers and programme teams, and the evolving and unstable nature of the cohort. Services were technically operational, but their value depended on coordination, activation, and communication processes that extended beyond providers themselves. 4.3.3
The implication
Support services existed and could deliver value, but utilisation and impact varied depending on how effectively they were activated, communicated, and connected to students at the right time. This is a programme design problem, not a provider problem.
Team Reflection Add-on
Additional insights on service providers
What worked with providers, what broke in activation, and what minimum response and reporting standards should be set for the next cycle.
04 · Universities · 1 of 2
Strong relationships; effective fee clearance
Across all three universities, Feenix was viewed as a responsive and cooperative partner. 4.4.1
Mutual responsiveness and effective communication
University stakeholders described relationships characterised by effective communication and quick response. Where long-standing relationships existed, dedicated contacts allowed Feenix-funded students to be prioritised quickly. 4.4.1
Fee clearance worked
Where funding commitments were sufficient to clear debt, registration proceeded without difficulty. Institutions facilitated registration and worked collaboratively to resolve barriers where funding partially covered outstanding balances. 4.4.2
Institutions played an active intermediary role
Universities helped identify eligible students, communicate programme opportunities, assist with admin processes, and acted quickly when payment confirmation was received. Multiple channels used, noticeboards, direct referrals, institutional contacts.
Strategic value confirmed
Universities viewed the programme as highly valuable, addressing critical financial barriers for postgraduate students from financially vulnerable backgrounds. Feenix's role as an intermediary for resource mobilisation was explicitly valued. 4.4.4
04 · Universities · 2 of 2
Accommodation timing and limited visibility
Accommodation operates on separate timelines
Tuition payments were received and processed. But accommodation funding often didn't align with institutional allocation cycles. Students were funded but still faced housing uncertainty. Universities had to manage student expectations during gaps. 4.4.2
Fragmented communication created admin burden
Multiple Feenix team members communicating with the same institution created uncertainty about whether requests had been addressed. Particularly challenging where staff managed multiple funding streams simultaneously. 4.4.3
Limited visibility into full student funding
Universities knew about tuition contributions, but had limited visibility into stipends, accommodation, or book allowances paid directly to students. This created risk of duplicating awards, required reversals, and limited holistic student support. 4.4.4
University suggestion
Route all funding components through institutional financial systems. This would improve oversight, reduce adjustments, and allow universities to manage student accounts more predictably. Integrating into existing infrastructure beats parallel management. 4.4.4
Team Reflection Add-on
Additional insights on universities
What is needed from university partners, what communication model should be standardised, and which dependencies need escalation pathways upfront.
05 · Students · 1 of 2
Funding confirmation = stability; coordination = delivery
Student experiences confirmed that coordination and timing shaped how effective the programme felt in practice, not just the existence of support. 4.5.1
Tuition funding was highly enabling
Students could register and continue their studies. This was described as life-changing, removing the fundamental financial barrier to postgraduate participation. 4.5.1
Academic resource vouchers helped
Offset study-related costs and reinforced the importance of wraparound financial support beyond tuition alone. Consistently valued and utilised by students.
Accommodation uncertainty despite funding
Confirmation timelines for accommodation didn't align with institutional cycles. Students were funded but faced periods of housing uncertainty, which directly affected stability and wellbeing. 4.5.1
Full stability requires all components
Tuition clearance alone did not equal student stability. Stable study required tuition + accommodation + support, all delivered in a coordinated and timely way. One delayed component undermined the whole.
05 · Students · 2 of 2
Support valued, but timing gaps undermined effectiveness
Tutoring helped where it landed
Students who engaged with tutoring reported positive academic and confidence benefits. The support, when accessed, worked. The problem was awareness, access, and relevance, not the intent of the service. 4.5.2
Mental health responsiveness gap
One student described receiving mental health support several days after requesting help, by which point the immediate crisis had passed. Availability of services alone is not sufficient, timeliness and proactive engagement are critical. 4.5.2
Device provision exceeded expectations
Laptop provision was consistently described as a major academic enabler. In one case, the device provided was of higher quality than those used by peers in technically demanding programmes. A material academic advantage. 4.5.3
Coordinated delivery is the product
Students confirmed what all stakeholders described: where support was timely and clearly coordinated, it enabled stable academic progression. Where timing or communication was unclear, students experienced avoidable uncertainty despite strong programme design. 4.5.2
Team Reflection Add-on
Additional insights for M&E: student feedback, tracking, monitoring
Capture what students are saying, what should be tracked weekly, and where monitoring signals are missing or too late.
Risk Areas Overview
Risk areas and delivery impact
Quick framing before rating. We align on what each risk means, then rate High, Medium, or Low in the interactive slide.
Risk A
External dependencies and escalation loops
Delays from universities or partners cascade into disbursement and student support timelines when escalation paths are unclear.
Risk B
Capacity and system constraints
High operational load and manual process pressure can reduce delivery quality and create execution bottlenecks.
Risk C
Wraparound access equity
Support access may vary by geography and channel, causing inconsistent student outcomes across locations.
Risk D
Pay-It-Forward realism
Volunteer-hour expectations may be difficult within postgraduate schedules, affecting completion and programme credibility.
Risk E
Verification and completion controls
If monitoring signals are late or weak, completion-risk cases are identified too late for meaningful course correction.
Interactive
Risk Rating · Interactive
Drag each risk to High, Medium, or Low
Suggested mitigations can be discussed, not finalised in this session.
Drag cards into a risk level. Click ↻ to cycle levels.
AExternal dependencies and escalation loops↻
BCapacity and system constraints↻
CWraparound access equity↻
DPay-It-Forward realism↻
EVerification and completion controls↻
Process Map Synthesis
Current process vs implementation reality
| Process Stage |
Documented Process |
Implementation Reality / Gap |
| Cohort confirmation | Single milestone after agreement signing | Volatility persists post-signing, requires managed stabilisation window |
| Disbursement readiness | Structured verification and release steps | University delays and manual debt parsing drive bottlenecks |
| Provider activation | Support services available to students | Uptake depends on onboarding quality and live cohort data |
| Monitoring and correction | Risk register and review cadence in place | Escalation triggers and ownership need clearer definition |
The 7 Recommendations
Moving from resilience to institutional maturity
The 2025 cohort was a stress test for the FREF model. These recommendations distil the underlying lessons. For each: DO NOW | PLAN | PARK
R1
Managed Cohort Stabilisation Model Student Advancement
R2
Scalable Operating Model Leadership
R3
Integrated Service Provider Model SA M&E
R4
Standardised Financial Coordination Finance
R5
Institutional Diplomacy with Universities Leadership SA
R6
Student Experience Lifecycle (Journey Map) Student Advancement
R7
Operational Maturity Transition All Teams
Recommendation 1
R1: Managed Cohort Stabilisation Model
The Problem
The programme was designed for a fixed intake moment, but postgraduate funding is inherently unstable. Continuous shifts in eligibility, funding overlaps, and late withdrawals created a prolonged "stabilisation phase" that cascaded into delayed disbursements and reverse administration processes throughout the cycle. 6.1
The Recommendation
Shift to a Managed Cohort Stabilisation Model. Introduce a formal "Stabilisation Window" (Feb–March) with controlled replacement protocols and staged support activation. The cohort is only "locked" once university registrations finalise. This enables year-on-year cohort comparisons and predictable planning. 4.1.1
Key questions the team should ask
What does a formal "Stabilisation Window" look like in practice? What triggers move the cohort from "provisional" to "locked"? What processes need to change upstream, recruitment, communications, systems, to make this work?
Recommendation 2
R2: Scalable Operating Model
The Problem
The operational intensity, spanning 173 students and multiple high-touch interventions, exceeded the capacity of the original delivery model. Success was maintained through individual effort rather than systemic design, sometimes prioritising administrative survival over proactive student engagement. 6.2
The Recommendation
Formalise a Scalable Operating Model with clear separation between financial administration, student engagement, and provider oversight. Define caseload ratios for student-facing roles to ensure sustainability as the programme scales. Design the model so it works without heroics. 4.1.4
Key questions the team should ask
What is a sustainable caseload ratio for student-facing staff? Where does the current model break first as student numbers increase? What role boundaries need to be drawn, and hardened, to prevent cross-team bleed?
The Problem
Service providers (MobieG, 123Tutors) operated adjacent to, rather than within, the programme ecosystem. Low utilisation was driven by a "relevance gap", students perceived text-based support as "generic" or "automated," while academic tutoring was often too generalist for postgraduate research. 6.3
The Recommendation
Pivot to an Integrated Service Provider Model. Reposition providers as partners through mandatory "human-first" onboarding (voice/video call). Align academic support with postgraduate research milestones. For mental health: real-time cohort data sharing is essential to prevent providers operating on outdated student lists. 4.3.4
Key questions the team should ask
What would "human-first" onboarding look like operationally, who facilitates it, when, at what cost? What data do providers need from us, and how often? What performance thresholds would trigger a provider review or termination?
The Problem
Financial friction in early 2025 was not a system failure, it was a result of unclear ownership around reconciliation inputs and approval sequencing. Without a finalised student list, Finance was forced into reactive, manual spreadsheet management, described internally as "too manual and too risky" at scale. 6.4
The Recommendation
Establish a hard "Data Lockdown" for student records at a defined point in the cycle. Implement formal reconciliation checkpoints between Programme and Finance teams. Shift Finance from manually tracking invoices to well-defined high-level oversight, with automated dashboards replacing spreadsheets. 4.2.3
Key questions the team should ask
When should "Data Lockdown" happen, what's the trigger and who calls it? What does the handover between Programme and Finance look like in a structured model? What would an automated financial dashboard need to show to replace manual tracking?
The Problem
Universities are critical partners, but their internal cycles for housing and billing often conflict with bursary timelines. The "manual tax" paid by the internal team to resolve accommodation blocks is not sustainable at scale. Universities also had limited visibility into students' full funding package. 6.5
The Recommendation
Formalise MOUs with university Development Offices (leveraging the proposed UJ blueprint) to trigger "Advance Allowance" protocols. Students receive housing and food support in February, ahead of the standard March/April billing reconciliation. Integrate Feenix funding data into institutional systems where possible. 4.4.4
Key questions the team should ask
What does the UJ MOU blueprint look like? What would each university need to agree to for this to work? How do we build institutional trust to the point where they'll share funding visibility with us, and vice versa?
The Problem
While the programme provided life-changing value, students highlighted a "responsiveness gap" during early-cycle crises. The lack of a clear, unified escalation pathway meant students often felt uncertain about where to turn when administrative delays affected their living conditions. 6.6
The Recommendation
Implement a Milestone-Based Student Journey Map. Define clear escalation pathways and contact protocols. Shift the student experience from a series of administrative tasks to a proactive lifecycle, particularly in situations that may compromise student security around registration, accommodation, or graduation. 4.5.2
Key questions the team should ask
What are the key lifecycle milestones we need to map? What does a "crisis escalation pathway" look like, who is the student's first point of contact, and what's the SLA for response? What proactive check-ins should be built into the standard cycle?
The Problem
The 2025 cycle successfully validated the bursary model through adaptive resilience. However, the organisation has reached a threshold where "firefighting" must be replaced by stable, repeatable systems to ensure long-term viability. Future expansion without further system strengthening would introduce significant operational risk. 6.7
The Recommendation
Institutionalise Operational Learning. Transition from adaptive implementation to a structured operating framework. This includes centralised governance, automated financial dashboards, and a formalised provider integration framework. The goal: predictability and sustained effectiveness without relying on heroics. 4.1.7
Key questions the team should ask
What does "operational maturity" look like for Feenix in 12 months? What are the top three systems investments that would have the highest leverage? How do we ensure the institutional learning from 2025 is captured and applied, not just remembered?
Team Focus Areas · 1 of 2
Team focus areas by function
Student Advancement
"How do we move from reactive engagement to proactive lifecycle management?"
R1 Cohort Stabilisation
R3 Service Integration
R5 Universities
R6 Journey Map
Key report sections: §4.2.1 Student Advancement, §4.3 Service Providers, §4.5 Students, §5.1–5.3
Monitoring & Evaluation
"What data do we need to catch problems before they escalate?"
R3 Service Integration
R7 Operational Maturity
Key report sections: §3.5 M&E Framework, §4.3 Service Providers, §5.5 Risk Areas, Risk E (verification gaps)
Leadership / Governance / Finance
"What structural changes are needed to scale without relying on heroics?"
R2 Operating Model
R4 Financial Coordination
R5 Universities
R7 Maturity Transition
Key report sections: §4.2.3 Finance, §4.4 Universities, §5.4–5.5, R28m→R95m growth context
Team Focus Areas · 2 of 2
Four questions every team should answer
Come prepared. These frame the action planning discussion.
What was the single biggest operational pain point in 2025 for your function?
Which of the 7 recommendations would have the highest impact if implemented in the next 30 days?
What would you need to make that happen, and what's standing in the way?
What's one thing the evaluation missed or got wrong about your team's experience?
Action Planning Rule
Every action needs one person's name, not a team name. Shared accountability = no accountability.
Interactive
Your Turn · Interactive
How would you sort these?
Drag cards to a bucket, or click ↻ to cycle through categories.
R1
Cohort Stabilisation
↻
R2
Operating Model
↻
R3
Service Provider Integration
↻
R4
Financial Coordination
↻
R5
University Diplomacy
↻
R6
Student Lifecycle
↻
R7
Operational Maturity
↻
No right answer, individual thinking only. We'll do this together as a group next.
Prioritisation Framework
Sorting the 7 recommendations
For each recommendation, the group will decide together. One classification per recommendation.
DO NOW
30 days
Actionable immediately. Owner identified. No significant dependencies or approvals required. First step can happen this week.
PLAN
This programme cycle
Important, but needs scoping, resources, or stakeholder alignment first. Build it into the 2026 planning process. Assign a lead to develop the plan.
PARK
Revisit later
Out of scope for now, either not feasible, dependent on other changes first, or lower priority than other items. Document the decision and the reason.
Go through all 7 recommendations first, then revisit contested items.
Did we do what we set out to do today?
Use this checklist to close the session with clear alignment and accountability.
Questions to close on:
- Did we align on the most important delivery risks and priorities?
- Did we confirm what is DO NOW, PLAN, and PARK?
- Did each immediate action get a named owner and first next step?
- Did we agree how and when we track progress after this session?
Prioritised recommendation list confirmed: DO NOW, PLAN, PARK
Named owner for every DO NOW action
30-day timeline and first actions agreed
Check-in rhythm confirmed for progress tracking
Confidential · Internal Workshop Use Only · March 2026
FREF Postgraduate Bursary Programme · Implementation Evaluation · Feenix
Wrap-Up
Thank you team, great session 👏
Your inputs sharpened the recommendations and clarified next actions. Let us keep momentum and turn today’s decisions into delivery.
Aligned priorities
Named owners
Clear next steps
