CIPD 5CO01 – AC 1.1- A.C1.4 Practice Guide

CIPD 5CO01 – AC 1.1 to AC 1.4 Practice Guide for understanding Organisational Performance & Culture in Practice through a simple thematic scenario for Level 5 study.

Organisational Performance & Culture in Practice often sits at the start of Level 5 study because it sets ideas in motion that speak to business, people practices, and how work feels on the ground. CIPD 5CO01 – AC 1.1- A.C1.4 Practice Guide helps students to connect the human side of labour with outcomes leaders tend to care about. Assessment is not asking for clever phrasing or fancy frameworks. It just asks for sense-making. If we can read a workplace, we can address this unit.

Picture a workplace without naming it. Staff carry out their tasks with reasonable competence. Managers set goals, usually tied to revenue, quality, or customer experience. Communication patterns vary, sometimes smooth, sometimes messy. People take cues from behaviour, not slogans. If someone gets praised for taking charge, others copy. If someone gets ignored for raising issues, others learn silence. That is the soil from which culture grows.

Performance emerges in small signals. Targets met. Complaints from clients. Absence patterns. Or even quiet pride in a job done well. None of this needs to be glamorous. For Level 5, the value sits in noticing how these threads connect. The student can then talk about influences, outcomes, and the part people practice professionals play.

CIPD 5CO01 – AC 1.1- A.C1.4 Practice Guide

Task – Questions  L01

AC 1.1 Evaluate the advantages and the disadvantages of both the divisional structure and the matrix structure. Within the evaluation, you should include the reasons underpinning each structure.  

Step 1 – Understand the command word.

The question uses the word evaluate. It means you need to weigh up both sides: the positives and the negatives. You’re also expected to go a little further by making some form of judgement or fair conclusion lightly.

Step 2 – Identify what structures are being compared.

You are asked about two specific structures: divisional and matrix. Each has to be discussed separately, then compared. A common mistake is students writing lots about one and barely touching the other. Assessors want a fair treatment of both.

Step 3 – Bring in the reasons underpinning the structures.

This is an extra part in the question. Don’t only list advantages or disadvantages. You need to show why these structures exist in the first place. For instance, divisional structures often appear in large organisations because it allows them to organise around products, services, or regions. Matrix structures come in when a business wants to share expertise across functions but still deliver for particular projects.

Step 4 – Balance your evaluation.

In real life, structures rarely sit perfectly in the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ box. You might mention that divisional structures bring clarity but can be costly due to duplication. Or that matrix encourages collaboration, though it can slow decision-making.

Step 5 – Keep the case study or examples in mind.

Even if you are not asked explicitly for examples, assessors like to see you applying theory to a realistic situation. Imagine a large retail chain or a construction firm, somewhere the structures make sense. A divisional model might help a company running both supermarkets and clothing stores. A matrix might be applied in a hotel group working across regions with both operational staff and project teams.

Step 6 – Structure your answer clearly.

Start with divisional, discuss positives and negatives, and give reasons. Move to matrix, do the same. Then add a short reflection comparing the two.

Model Response AC 1.1

Organisational structures are often shaped by the nature of work and the scale of operations. Two forms that are commonly discussed are divisional and matrix structures, both of which have benefits but also create certain difficulties.

A divisional structure is usually found in organisations that operate across multiple product lines, markets, or regions. It allows each division to function almost like a smaller business within the larger group. This brings some practical advantages. Decisions can be taken closer to the market, and teams within each division often understand their customers better. For example, a company with both food retail and clothing operations might find it useful to run them as separate divisions, so each can respond to its own customer base. There is also a sense of accountability, because divisional heads are clearly responsible for performance.

The drawbacks are often financial and strategic. Each division tends to need its own support functions, HR, finance, marketing which can mean duplication of resources and higher costs. There can also be tension between divisions, with competition for funding or senior attention. At times, divisions become so focused on their own objectives that the overall corporate strategy becomes less clear. The reason such a structure exists, though, is precisely because it allows scale. Without it, very large organisations might find themselves overwhelmed by trying to control everything centrally.

Matrix structures are different, as they try to combine two logics at once, for instance, functional expertise and project delivery. Employees may report to both a functional manager and a project manager. This creates benefits in terms of knowledge sharing. A hotel chain running projects across several countries might use a matrix so that finance specialists, marketing staff, and operations managers can contribute to the same project while still keeping ties with their professional discipline. It can create flexibility and encourage learning between different parts of the business.

Yet, the very design of the matrix also brings challenges. Dual reporting lines can be confusing, and staff may struggle when priorities clash. Decision-making often takes longer, as agreement is needed from more than one manager. People sometimes feel pulled in two directions, which can affect morale and clarity of role. Still, organisations use a matrix because it allows them to run complex projects without losing the depth of their professional functions.

When the two are compared, divisional structures appear to offer clearer accountability but at the price of duplicated effort, while matrix structures can connect people across boundaries but sometimes at the cost of speed. The choice between them usually depends on the size of the business, the diversity of its products, and the importance placed on cross-functional collaboration.

AC 1.2 Analyse the extent to which the organisational strategy in your organisation (or an organisation with which you are familiar) helps to ensure that products or services meet the customer’s needs. 

Step 1: Understand the Question

The wording is asking you to analyse the extent to which the organisational strategy helps meet customer needs.
That means two things:

1. You’re not just describing NHS strategy. You’re going a step further, almost weighing how far it really supports patient needs.
2. You should expect to show both sides. Where the strategy does help, and maybe where it struggles.

Think of it as on one side, strategy on paper, on the other side, what patients actually need in reality.

Step 2: What Assessors Expect

They’re looking for you to demonstrate three layers:

• Knowledge: That you understand what an organisational strategy is, and what NHS’s is in particular.
• Application: That you can link NHS’s approach with patient or customer needs.
• Critical thought: That you don’t just praise it. You show limits, tensions, or practical issues.

So, if you only write “NHS strategy is focused on patient care, and this helps meet patient needs,” that’s too shallow. The assessor will want you to show how the strategy works in practice, maybe even bring in a real case or challenge the NHS has faced.

Step 3: Picking a Case Angle

The NHS is very broad, so it helps to narrow. For example, you might choose:

• NHS England’s Long Term Plan (2019) which aims to improve prevention, digital access, and community-based care.
  This is a credible base because it’s well documented and still active in shaping services.

Once you pick that, you can then compare it to what patients actually want. Most patients look for timely access, safety, dignity, affordability, and consistency in services.

Step 4: Linking Strategy to Needs

Now you’re going to show connections. For instance:

• The NHS strategy places emphasis on digital GP consultations. This helps meet the need for convenience, especially for working families.
• It also speaks about integrated care systems across regions. That helps with patients’ need for continuity, where services don’t feel fragmented.
  But then, you might question, does everyone benefit equally? Older patients or those without digital literacy may not find online GP services easy. So there’s a gap between strategy and reality.

That questioning voice is what the assessor wants.

Step 5: Bringing in Examples

Examples should feel real and UK-based. For instance:

• During COVID-19, the NHS strategy to expand digital services worked quickly to maintain consultations. Patients with smartphones benefited.
• Yet, people in deprived areas, or with no internet, reported struggles to access care.

This shows you’re not just parroting strategy but connecting it to lived experiences.

Step 6: Drawing an Assessment

When you “analyse the extent,” you’re essentially making a judgement. Something like:

“The NHS strategy makes strong progress in certain areas such as prevention and digital care, which aligns with modern patient expectations. Yet, the gap between what is written and what patients actually experience, such as waiting times and access for vulnerable groups shows that the extent is partial rather than complete.”

Model Response AC 1.2

When we look at the NHS, one of the most relevant strategies to consider is the NHS Long Term Plan (2019). It sets out priorities for improving patient care over a ten-year period, and it can be used as a reference point to judge how far organisational strategy supports the needs of its “customers,” which in this case are patients and service users.

The plan places heavy focus on prevention, better management of long-term conditions, and the growth of digital services such as online GP consultations. At first, this directly reflects what many patients say they want; quicker access, less waiting around, and care that feels joined up rather than fragmented. For example, being able to consult a GP on a smartphone might help parents with small children or working adults who cannot easily take time off. So the strategy appears to be moving in step with modern expectations.

Yet, when we look closer, one of the biggest patient concerns has been waiting times, especially for hospital treatments and specialist referrals. Despite the Long Term Plan setting out ambitions to reduce delays, in practice waiting lists have grown to record levels. This suggests that while the strategy recognises the need, the execution falls short, leaving patients frustrated. In other words, the extent to which strategy meets needs here is partial at best.

Another area worth considering is prevention and community-based care. The strategy highlights investment in mental health services and localised care networks. This is a positive step, as patients often value being treated closer to home. A real example can be found in some integrated care systems in Greater Manchester, where hospitals, GPs, and social care teams work more closely. Many patients benefit from smoother experiences. Still, not all regions have seen the same progress, so the outcome varies widely.

Digital access is another mixed picture. The push for online appointments meets the needs of those comfortable with technology, but older patients, or those in deprived areas without internet access, may feel excluded. So the very same strategy that solves problems for one group can create barriers for another.

If we stand back, we can say the NHS strategy does respond to what people ask for; timely access, better prevention, respect, and value for money. But the extent to which this is realised in daily life depends on funding, staffing, and regional variations. The commitment is there, but the delivery is uneven. That gap between aspiration and reality is where the analysis lies.

AC 1.3 Analyse the current impact on interest rates, inflation, and one other external factor on your origination (or one with which you are familiar). Identify organisational priorities arising from your analysis. 

What the assessor wants

• Show you can analyse how three external factors affect an organisation (NHS England).
• Use evidence and make cause → effect links: e.g. “interest rates rise → borrowing costs for trusts rise → capital programme under pressure.”
• From that analysis, identify clear organisational priorities (what NHS should focus on next) and explain why.
• Make it practical – demonstrate you know what the NHS can reasonably do in response and how success will be measured.

Step 1 – Define the scope and time window

Start by deciding scope. For this task I’d use NHS England (acute and community trusts) and examine current macro signals up to early September 2025 – that keeps things concrete and assessable. Use national data (Bank of England, ONS) and NHS workforce/budget stats. Pick one time horizon for priorities (short: 6–12 months; medium: 1–3 years). That way your recommendations aren’t vague.

Useful data points to cite right away as of our case study: Bank Rate at 4% (official Bank of England data). – Bank of England
UK consumer inflation (CPI) at 3.8% in the 12 months to July 2025. – Office for National Statistics
NHS vacancy rate recently reported as about 6.7% (to March 2025) and wider workforce pressures flagged by sector analysts. – House of Commons Library, Health.org.uk

Step 2 – Gather evidence

For each factor you’ll need two bits:

1. The macro fact (numbers/statements from an official source). e.g. Bank Rate, CPI, vacancy counts. – Bank of England, Office for National Statistics, House of Commons Library
2. NHS-specific evidence (trust financial accounts, NHS workforce statistics, press releases about pay rounds, agency spend figures). Use NHS Digital and credible sector think-tanks. – NHS England Digital, Health.org.uk).
3. Keep notes: date, figure, short comment on reliability. That’s what the assessor will want to see: dated evidence and source.

Step 3 – Analyse interest rates

1. State the fact in one sentence: The Bank Rate is 4% (Aug/Sep 2025). (Bank of England)
2. Explain channels to NHS:
   • Capital borrowing: many trusts borrow for redevelopment. Higher base rates typically push up public and commercial borrowing costs (PWLB and market rates), which raises the cost of planned building or equipment projects.
   • Cashflow and short-term borrowing: some trusts use short-term facilities; costs rise there too.
   • Staff household pressure: higher mortgage costs squeeze staff budgets, which can worsen retention and recruitment pressures. This is an indirect but real channel. (See reporting on households facing mortgage increases).
3. Practical detail to add/show depth) If you can, give a small worked example e.g. “a trust planning to borrow £100m at a margin of X% would see annual interest payments rise by £Y if rates move from 3% to 4%.” Quantify where possible; assessors like numbers.

Step 4 – Analyse inflation

1. State the fact: CPI 3.8% (12 months to July 2025). (Office for National Statistics)
2. Channels:
   1. Pay pressure: staff expect pay rises to protect real incomes; that raises the wage bill if management agrees higher pay awards.
   2. Procurement and energy: medical supplies, drugs, utilities and maintenance costs track inflation, so the non-pay budget is squeezed.
   3. Contract and supplier price reviews: short supplier contracts may reprice; longer contracts may have inflation clauses.
3. Evidence you should show, year-on-year cost increases for a trust’s major headings (pay / drugs / energy). If you can’t get trust figures, use national procurement indices or case examples.

Step 5 – Pick the third factor workforce shortages

Why workforce? Because staff numbers and vacancies determine service delivery capacity, and this interacts with both rates and inflation.

1. State the fact(s): The NHS vacancy rate was reported around 6.7% (March 2025) and analysts flag large shortfalls in key roles. (House of Commons Library, Health.org.uk)
2. How shortages hit the organisation:
   1. Service capacity: cancelled clinics, longer waits, measurable harm to waiting-time targets.
   2. Cost: reliance on agency staff to plug gaps is expensive; that worsens budgets already under strain from inflation and borrowing costs.
   3. Staff wellbeing: overwork and burnout increase turnover, a vicious circle.
3. Link back to macro: When inflation is high and household costs are rising, staff may leave the NHS for better-paying roles abroad or in private sector; higher rates increase borrowing costs for training and capital which can delay hiring plans.

Step 6 – synthesis by putting the three together

Make a short causal chain in one paragraph. Keep it concrete:

• Higher inflation lifts wage and non-pay costs.
• The Bank Rate at 4% keeps borrowing costs higher than a few years ago, so capital projects and new estate spending face more expensive finance.
• Workforce shortages increase reliance on agency staff and overtime, which pressures operating budgets already squeezed by inflation.

Don’t overstate certainty. You might add: “Markets are also uncertain about the timing of rate changes, which makes multi-year planning harder.” That’s fair and backed by market commentary.

Step 7 – Identify organisational priorities

Turn your analysis into ranked priorities (short, mid, long term). For each priority, say why it follows from the analysis and give 2–3 practical actions.

1. Protect core workforce and reduce agency reliance (short → medium)Why: workforce gaps are driving immediate cost and quality issues. (House of Commons Library)
   Actions: strengthen retention (career routes, flexible hours, wellbeing support), expand internal staff bank contracts to cut agency spend, target recruitment in high-vacancy specialties with funded training places. Include metrics: vacancy rate reduction target (e.g. from 6.7% → 5.5% in 12 months), agency spend reduction percent.
2. Short-term financial resilience and cash management (immediate)Why: with Bank Rate at 4% borrowing and cash costs are not negligible. (Bank of England)
   Actions: tighten cash forecasts, re-phasing non-essential capital spend, use central government short-term facilities where available, renegotiate supplier payment terms, set a contingency buffer. Show simple numbers: expected interest cost increase on X borrowing.
3. Control procurement and costs pressured by inflation (short → medium)Why: CPI at 3.8% lifts non-pay lines. (Office for National Statistics)
   Actions: bulk buying, multi-year framework contracts with fixed elements, review energy contracts for hedging, prioritise high-value consumables. Provide an estimated saving or avoid-cost figure to show realism.
4. Scenario planning and funding engagement (medium)Why: uncertain rate path and public finances mean assumptions may change; NHS needs robust scenarios. (Reuters)
   Actions: create at least three budget scenarios (central, downside, upside), lobby for multi-year funding settlements for workforce and capital, prepare a “what we will stop/do” list for each scenario.
5. Invest where it reduces future cost/demand (medium → long) Why: some investments (IT, community care models) reduce demand growth for acute services. Actions: prioritise those business cases that show clear payback within 3–5 years; use capital only where the financial case is credible given borrowing costs.

Model Response AC 1.3

The Bank of England base rate is currently at 4%. At first, this might look like a matter for private businesses rather than a public health body, but it does reach the NHS in a few ways. When trusts borrow for estate development, higher rates push up the cost of finance, which can delay hospital projects or reduce their scale. Short-term borrowing costs also rise. There is a knock-on effect for staff too. Households with mortgages or loans see monthly outgoings rise, which can worsen retention as employees look for better-paid roles elsewhere. So the interest rate environment matters both for capital budgets and for staff wellbeing.

Inflation is the second pressure. UK consumer price inflation was 3.8% in the year to July 2025. That means medical supplies, energy, and building maintenance are all more expensive than a year ago. It also feeds directly into pay negotiations. Staff want their earnings to at least keep pace with the cost of living. If the NHS settles for higher pay awards, wage bills rise; if it does not, turnover may increase. Either way, the organisation feels the strain.

The third factor chosen is workforce shortages. NHS data shows a vacancy rate of around 6.7% in early 2025, with particularly acute gaps in nursing and general practice. This is not just a budgetary issue; it has a visible effect on patients through longer waiting times and cancelled appointments. To plug gaps, many trusts rely on agency staff, which is costly. High vacancies also push existing staff into overtime, leading to burnout and sometimes further exits from the service. Workforce shortages, in this sense, magnify the problems created by inflation and interest rates.

From this analysis several organisational priorities emerge. In the short term, the NHS must protect core staff numbers by focusing on retention, more flexible work patterns, career development, and wellbeing support. This would help bring down reliance on expensive agency contracts. Alongside that, there is a need for tight financial control, especially on cash flow and capital projects, so that borrowing costs do not spiral. Procurement strategies also matter, committing to longer-term supply contracts where possible could soften the impact of inflation. Finally, the organisation should build scenario plans to test what happens if rates stay higher for longer or if inflation picks up again.

Overall, these three external factors are not abstract background conditions. They directly affect day-to-day decision making inside the NHS, shaping what can be afforded, how staff feel about their jobs, and ultimately the level of service patients receive.

AC 1.4 When setting out its view on automation, AI, and technology, the CPID states, ‘Automation, artificial intelligence (AI) and other workplace technologies are bringing major changes to work and employment.’ Assess the scale of technology within the organisation and how it impacts work. 

What the question really asks

When the assessment asks you to “assess the scale of technology within the organisation and how it impacts work,” think of two linked tasks:

1. Scale – how widely technology is present across the trust or NHS service, how deeply it is used in everyday tasks, and how mature the tools are (pilot, routine, mission-critical).
2. Impact on work – what changes appear in tasks, roles, skills, workload, ways of working, staff wellbeing and patient experience because of those tools.

Assessors want evidence, clarity and critical judgement. They want you to show you can measure presence, judge consequence, and recommend sensible next steps grounded in the case study.

Step 1 – What’s the scope of the task

• Decide which part of the NHS you will study. Pick one trust or clinical service so your discussion is concrete. For example, choose an acute hospital trust, a community trust, or a primary care network.
• Set time boundaries: are you describing the situation now, over the last three years, or planning horizon to 2028? Pick one and stick with it.
• Tell the assessor your scope in one sentence at the top: e.g. this assessment reviews digital systems used across clinical and corporate services at NHS Trust, focusing on adoption and effects from 2021–2024.

Step 2 – Map the technology

Create a clear inventory under headings such as: Clinical systems, Admin/operations, Patient-facing, Workforce/HR systems, Infrastructure. For the NHS you would typically list items like:

• Electronic patient record (EPR) systems (clinical notes, orders).
• Electronic prescribing and medicines administration (EPMA).
• Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) for imaging.
• Digital triage and NHS 111 online / chatbots.
• Teleconsultation platforms and remote monitoring (virtual wards).
• E-rostering and staff scheduling systems (e.g. Allocate HealthRoster).
• Robotics/automation in pharmacy and pathology labs.
• Robotic process automation (RPA) for repetitive admin tasks (invoices, claims).
• The NHS App and appointment booking systems.
• Clinical decision support and AI pilots (radiology triage, pathology screening).
• Cloud services, Wi-Fi, device fleets (laptops, tablets), and cyber security tools.

Remember to give one short line about what each item does and where it is used in the trust, this turns a list into evidence.

Step 3 – Gather evidence

Assessors want sources. Use a mix of documentary and primary evidence:

• Trust digital strategy and Board papers (say where you looked).
• Annual report and accounts (for IT spend).
• Staff survey results and local engagement notes (how staff experience tech).
• Service data: number of virtual consultations, e-prescriptions issued, helpdesk tickets.
• Short interviews or quotes from staff groups (clinician, nurse, admin). A few anonymised quotes help.
• Observation notes (e.g. shadow a ward handover using the EPR).
• Audit or incident reports (where tech caused delays or prevented harm).

Give examples of the questions you used in interviews: “How much of your shift involves entering data on screen?” “Do you feel digital systems save you time?” “What tasks still need paper?” Keep it simple.

Step 4 – Measure scale

Pick a handful of measurable indicators and record them. For instance:

• Breadth – number of services using the EPR (outpatients, A&E, wards, community) / total services.
• Depth – where is the system used in task sequences (admission → treatment → discharge)?
• Maturity – stage: pilot, routine use, or mission critical.
• Adoption – proportion of staff using each system regularly.
• Spend – IT budget as a portion of trust budget (if available).
• Activity – number of virtual consultations per month; number of e-prescriptions per week.

We advise that you can present these as a small table or heat map. Even rough percentages are useful. The point is to show your assessor you can measure, not perfect numbers.

Step 5 – Analyse impact on work

Clinical practice and patient care

• Positive: record access at point of care means faster decision making and fewer lost notes. For example, a ward team can see imaging reports and lab results in the EPR rather than waiting for paper.
• Caution: decision support tools can suggest diagnoses but clinicians must still check, this changes professional judgement and oversight. There is a risk of over-reliance, or of alerts contributing to alarm fatigue.

Administrative and back-office tasks

• Positive: RPA can take routine invoice processing off busy clerical teams, freeing them for higher value tasks.
• Negative: automation of clerical tasks may reduce some job roles or change job content; staff may need retraining or redeployment, and there can be short-term disruption when processes are reworked.

Workforce and HR functions

• E-rostering can cut time spent on rotas, reduce unplanned overtime and give staff more predictable patterns.
• New systems require training time and ongoing support; some staff feel slower at first and report stress.

Patient access and experience

• Digital appointment booking and virtual consultations can speed access for many patients.
• Risk of exclusion if patients lack digital access or confidence.

Data, governance and work practices

• More data enables service planning and performance measurement.
• It also brings new duties: stronger records management, stricter access controls, and extra admin for consent and data protection.

Each point, give a short direct example from your chosen trust or a plausible vignette e.g. “A senior nurse told me that entering observations into the EPR takes longer than pen and paper at first, though ward handovers are cleaner once records are complete.”

Step 6 – Show the risks and opportunities

Say what is helpful and what is risky for staff and service users. For example:

• Opportunity: quicker access to information improves care planning.
• Risk: poor design or under-training can increase workload and cause frustration.
• Opportunity: some admin roles can be reshaped into analyst or coordinator roles.
• Risk: some roles may shrink, and staff will resist change if they see threat to pay or status.

Offer a short illustration of trade-offs and don’t try to force all positives, a small contradiction is fine

Step 7 – Make HR-focused recommendations

Assessors expect action points. Keep them short, justified and feasible:

1. Conduct a staff skills audit – identify digital skills gaps and map training needs.
2. Plan phased roll-outs with pilots in one ward or clinic and collect feedback; don’t convert everything at once.
3. Create clear redeployment pathways for roles affected by automation; show how clerical skills can be re-used.
4. Set up local governance with clinical and staff representation to review AI/decision support tools before trust-wide use.
5. Measure outcomes: staff time saved, error rates, patient feedback, and uptake. Keep the metrics simple and track them.
6. Address digital exclusion: offer assisted booking and telephone access for patients who cannot use online services.

Explain a quick rationale after each recommendation

Model Response AC 1.4

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) is among the largest NHS trusts, covering multiple hospitals and community services across Greater Manchester. Over the last decade, it has invested heavily in digital systems, making it a useful example for examining the scale of workplace technology and how it shapes everyday work.

Across the trust, technology is embedded in both clinical and corporate services. At the clinical front, the electronic patient record (EPR) system is the most visible. It covers major hospitals such as Manchester Royal Infirmary and Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital. Doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals use it for notes, test results, prescribing, and discharge summaries. Imaging is fully digital through PACS, and pharmacy has moved to electronic prescribing and medicines administration (EPMA). Virtual consultation platforms are increasingly used in outpatient clinics, especially for follow-up appointments. This gives patients the choice of online contact without travelling to hospital.

In operational areas, e-rostering systems schedule thousands of staff shifts each week. Payroll and HR services are largely digitised, with self-service portals for payslips, leave requests, and training records. Automation is slowly being tested for invoice processing and claims management, with robotic process automation used in finance and HR. Patient-facing systems are also scaling up. The NHS App links directly with MFT appointments and repeat prescriptions.

The scale is significant and according to Board papers in 2023, more than 20,000 staff log into the EPR every week, and virtual consultations number around 6,000 per month across the trust. Almost all inpatient and outpatient episodes now involve at least one digital system. This shows that technology has become routine rather than experimental.

The impact on work is mixed. For clinicians, faster access to results supports safer care. Consultants can review imaging remotely, and nurses say that electronic prescribing reduces errors in drug rounds. Yet, many staff still feel that data entry during busy shifts slows them down. Some administrative roles have shifted, with clerical staff redeployed to digital support functions or analytics teams. For HR and managers, rostering and payroll automation cuts time spent on manual tasks, though staff occasionally report confusion with new portals.

From a workforce perspective, the trust recognises that staff training is critical. It runs digital skills sessions and appoints ward “digital champions” to support peers. The wider challenge lies in balancing patient convenience with digital exclusion: some patients struggle with online access, so alternative routes remain necessary.

On balance, the scale of technology at MFT is high, touching nearly all aspects of service delivery and workforce management. It changes the shape of daily work, often positively, but with pressures that HR and management must continue to address through training, support, and fair redeployment strategies.

CIPD 5CO01 Organisational Performance & Culture in Practice Guide

Organisational Performance & Culture and Managing people in An International Context in Practice feels more real when we drop the glamour and stay with common workplace signals. Performance does not appear overnight. It grows from routines and unspoken norms. The unit encourages students to study behaviour at work, how targets shape motivation, how recognition matters, and how conflict quietly reshapes relationships. No elaborate theory is needed to see that people deliver better outcomes when they feel heard and treated with respect.

Assessment tasks often ask the student to discuss how culture influences results and how people practices can support better outcomes. A reflective tone tends to land well. For instance, a student might say they are unsure if a new review system will improve morale but they can see how it encourages dialogue. That kind of cautious stance mirrors real work.

There is also space to acknowledge messiness. A workplace can have strong camaraderie and yet high turnover. Staff can enjoy freedom in task completion but feel lost in longer-term career plans. Contradictions make sense in human settings. Assessors respond to that candour because it looks honest.

This unit links an individual’s study to the everyday reality of people practice roles. The scenario of unnamed teams and leaders reminds us that patterns repeat across sectors. How we treat one another matters for outcomes. Targets matter too, though they rarely speak for themselves. The student who holds both thoughts at once tends to find the unit starts to make sense.