Weekly 1:1

Person #2: Can you hear me okay? I'm in the car, actually—I had a thing at the Crown Prince Court that ran long, so I'm heading in now. The audio should be fine, I'm on the headset. Person #3: Yes, I can hear you clearly. No problem at all. I'm at my desk already. Person #2: Good, good. Sorry for the late start, I know we said nine-thirty. Khalas, let's just get into it. How was your weekend? Person #3: It was good, thank you. Quiet. We had the family over on Friday afternoon, after the prayers. The usual. Person #2: Mashallah. That's nice. I spent most of Sunday reading through the ADEC scorecard submissions. Which, honestly, is why I wanted to talk today. Did you get a chance to look at the final version I sent you on Thursday evening? Person #3: I did. I read through it yesterday night, actually. And I have a few notes. With respect, I think there are a couple of areas where the narrative might be—how do I put this—overstating the progress we've made on the innovation lab pilots. Person #2: Interesting. Okay, hold that thought. I want to come back to that. But first, let me ask you something bigger. Have you been following what the Singapore team announced at their GITEX Asia thing last week? The whole "AI-native citizen journey" framework? Person #3: I saw the press release, yes. And the LinkedIn posts. It looks impressive, but I imagine they have a very different starting point than we do. Their data infrastructure is— Person #2: Sorry, can I just—yes, different starting point, absolutely. But the concept is what I'm interested in. They've essentially made their entire government service catalog machine-readable and then they let the AI layer negotiate the journey on behalf of the user. Not just answer questions. Actually execute. That's... that's a significant leap from what we're doing with TAMM 4.0. Person #3: The TAMM 4.0 launch at GITEX was well received. The AI assistant is handling, I think, the latest numbers I saw were around 80,000 interactions a week. And the journey completion rate— Person #2: I'm not knocking TAMM. TAMM is fine, TAMM is good. But it's reactive. The user has to know to go there. The Singapore model is predictive. It's proactive. It knows your business license is up for renewal, it knows your visa status, and it just... handles it. That's the direction of travel. And I think we need to explore that for the 2027 cycle. Person #3: For the 2027 cycle? The Digital Strategy is still in its first year, yaani. We haven't even baseline'd the 2025 metrics. I worry that if we introduce a new framework now, the sectors will push back. They're still trying to get their heads around the 200 AI use cases. And the KPI definitions for those—that was a battle, as you remember. Person #2: I remember. I remember the Health sector arguing about "deaths averted" for three weeks. But that's exactly my point. We fought over definitions because the outcomes were so far away from the day-to-day activity. What Singapore is doing is collapsing that distance. The outcome is the action. It's clean. What if we run a pilot? Not a full rollout. Just one or two entities. Maybe with DMT on the business licensing side. Or even the Department of Education. Person #3: A pilot is more manageable. But, with respect, we're already running, I think, seven pilots under the innovation lab banner. And the reporting burden on the entities is substantial. Many of them are still managing their ADERP rollouts. Oracle is behind schedule again. I heard from the Finance team at DMT that they're not expecting to be live on the new general ledger module until December, at the earliest. Person #2: December? That's... okay. But that's not our problem. That's GovDigital's problem. Let's not fix their battle. I'm asking about appetite. When you spoke to the entities last week at the planning workshop, did anyone mention anything about wanting more automation? Or were they just complaining about the templates? Person #3: The templates were mentioned. Yes. Multiple times. And the data quality requirements. One of the directors from DoH, she cornered me about the population health dataset—she said the definitions we gave them don't match what they send to MOHAP. So now they're reconciling two different reporting streams. Person #2: Ugh. That's a data governance issue. I thought we had settled that with the enterprise architecture team. Who's the owner on that? Is it GovDigital or is it the Data Office? Person #3: It's still with GovDigital. The Data Office is only advisory. They don't have the mandate to enforce the standards across entities. Not yet, anyway. Person #2: Right, right. Okay, I might have to have a word with His Excellency about that. It's a mess. But again—not today. Today I want to talk about the scorecard, and more importantly, about your rating. Person #3: My rating? Person #2: Yes. I've finalized the narrative for the ADEC submission, and I want to go through it with you because—well, you'll see. But before I do, I need to be honest with you. I think you're probably expecting a bit more than what you're going to get this year. Person #3: I—okay. I see. Can I ask why? I thought the planning cycle went well. We delivered everything on time. The templates were approved. The sectors signed off. The ADEC submission is on schedule. Person #2: It did go well. The delivery was—you're right, it was on time, it was professional. But there's a difference between delivering the work and moving the needle on the outcome. And the outcome for Strategic Affairs this year was, was to get the entities to align their five-year plans with the ADEC vision. And I'm not sure we've done that. Person #3: With respect, that's not entirely fair. We got them to align. They changed their language. The word "innovation" appears in all 53 entity plans now. And "outcome-based" is in there too. Person #2: The language, yes. The language changed. But the content didn't. I read the final submissions. They're better than last year, they're more structured. But they're still activity lists. "We will hold X number of workshops." "We will launch Y program." I don't see the strategic thinking. I don't see the trade-offs. I don't see them saying "we're going to stop doing Z in order to do A better." And that's the standard I was hoping for. Person #3: I hear you. But I pushed them. I ran three rounds of feedback. In the final review meeting, I told them directly—I said, "This is not a list. This is a strategy." And they just... they didn't have the capacity. The planning teams at the entities are stretched. They're not strategic thinkers. They're coordinators. They collect inputs from their own departments and they paste them together. That's the reality. Person #2: That's the reality, yes. And that's the problem. We're not going to change that reality by sending more feedback notes. We need to change the way they see their role. Which brings me back to Singapore. They don't have that problem. Their planning teams are more senior, they have more autonomy. Person #3: They also have a different salary scale. And a different headcount. We can't compare. Person #2: No, we can't. But we can learn. And I think we should. But let's put that aside for a moment. Let me talk about the rating. Because I know you're worried about the confirmation. Person #3: I—well, yes. The acting title. It's been almost a year now. And I've been told the confirmation decision is tied to the performance cycle. So I'm not going to pretend it's not on my mind. Person #2: It should be on your mind. It's a legitimate concern. And I want to reassure you that I'm not blocking it. I've already spoken to the Undersecretary about it. He's supportive. He likes what you've done with the standards library. He mentioned the effort you put into simplifying the procurement standards. Person #3: Thank you, that's good to hear. Person #2: But the formal process requires the HR law's calibration step. And in that calibration, the panel looks at the performance rating and the narrative. And if the rating is, let's say, not at the highest level, then the confirmation might be seen as premature. Person #3: So my rating will be lower because of the entities' capacity issues? That seems—that seems unfair. I delivered what was asked. Person #2: It's not about what's fair. It's about the system. And the system rewards outcomes. Not effort. I know that's harsh, but it's how the calibration works. They don't see the effort. They see the scorecard. And the scorecard for Strategic Affairs on the "alignment" metric is... it's a B. Maybe a B-plus if I'm generous. Person #3: A B-plus. Person #2: For the record, I'm giving you an A-minus on the planning execution. But the overall sector score is weighed down by the alignment piece. And that's on me as much as it's on you. I own that. I should have pushed harder in the summer to get the sector heads to take the planning more seriously. I was too accommodating. Person #3: You were trying to build consensus. That's not a weakness. Person #2: It is when we miss the ADEC target. But okay. I'm telling you this now because I don't want you to be blindsided when the official communication comes out. The calibration panel meets in two weeks. Your rating will be discussed. I will argue for your confirmation, and I think I'll win. But I need you to be prepared for the possibility that the rating itself won't be as high as you hoped. Person #3: I appreciate the warning. It's not what I hoped to hear, but I appreciate it. Can I ask—what would have made it an A? For my own understanding. Person #2: Three things. One: if you had flagged the capacity issue earlier. If you had come to me in June and said, "The entities are not going to meet the standard, I need you to intervene at the DG level." Two: if you had developed a contingency plan—a plan B for how we could achieve alignment without the entities' full cooperation. And three: if you had pushed back on me when I made the call to reduce the planning cycle from twelve weeks to eight. You knew it was too tight. You said so in the meeting. But you didn't push back. Person #3: I said it once. And you overruled me. I didn't want to be difficult. Person #2: I know. And that's the tension. You're a good soldier. But sometimes I need someone to tell me I'm wrong. Not just once. Twice. Three times. Until I listen. Person #3: I'll keep that in mind. For next year. Person #2: Good. Now—let's shift. I want to talk about the World Governments Summit. It's February, which seems far away, but the planning cycle for our panel sessions starts in October. And I have an idea that I want to run by you. Person #3: Okay. I'm listening. Person #2: I was reading a piece over the weekend about the Brazilian government's approach to digital identity. They've rolled out a biometric-based national ID. And they've linked it to, I think, 90% of their public services. The enrollment rate is staggering. And they did it in, like, three years. And I thought—why can't we do something like that? Not exactly that, but something that bold. For the summit, I'm thinking of proposing a panel on "The End of the Form." The idea being that the AI layer makes forms obsolete. You just... state your intent. And the government does the rest. Person #3: The End of the Form. That's a catchy title. Person #2: It's a conversation starter. And it positions us as forward-looking. Which is what ADEC wants to see from us. They want Abu Dhabi to be seen as the place where government innovation is happening. Not just in the region. In the world. And I think we have the pieces to make that argument. TAMM is good. The data center investment is good. The AI use cases are—well, they're a mixed bag. But the story is there. We just need to tell it better. Person #3: I think the story is there. But I'm worried about the substance. If we invite international speakers, they'll ask about the results. They'll ask about the adoption numbers. They'll ask about the "hallucinated fees" incident from TAMM in March. That was on the news. They will know about it. Person #2: They will. And we need to get ahead of that narrative. We need to show what we learned from it. How we fixed it. How we made the system more robust. That's a credibility story. And I trust the GovDigital team to tell it. The new CX lead, she's good. She's handled the media well. And the minister is confident. I spoke to him briefly after the Cabinet meeting on Sunday. He likes the idea. Person #3: You've already spoken to him? Person #2: Just a preliminary conversation. I wanted to gauge his appetite before I invested time in the proposal. He said—and this is interesting—he said, "The world is tired of panels about AI. They want to see the boring stuff. The plumbing. The identity layer. The consent layer. The audit trail." Which is a very good point. So maybe the panel isn't about the vision. It's about the architecture. Person #3: The plumbing. Your Excellency used the word "plumbing"? Person #2: His words, not mine. But he's right. And that changes the ask. We don't need the visionary speakers. We need the engineers. The people who built the Brazilian ID. The people who built the Estonian X-Road. The people who are building the India Stack. Those are the speakers. And I think we can get them. The India Stack team, they're usually open to international engagements if you mention the Prime Minister's vision—they like the visibility. Person #3: That's a different panel than the one we were originally planning. The original concept was about "Future-Ready Workforces." We had already shortlisted some HR leaders from the GCC. Person #2: I know. We'll need to pivot. And that's where you come in. I need you to draft the new concept note for the summit panel. A one-pager. By end of day today. I have a meeting with the Communications team tomorrow morning, and I want to show them the direction. Person #3: By end of day? That's—today is Monday. I have the scorecard follow-up with the ADEC analysts at two. Person #2: You can do it. It's a one-pager. Just the concept, the proposed speakers, and the key messages. You don't need to do the full research. I'll send you some links to the Brazilian ID and the India Stack documentation. You can build from there. Person #3: Okay. I'll do my best. But I need to also prepare the standards library update for the Thursday meeting. And I have the weekly check-in with the Planning teams at three. Person #2: I know, I know. But this is a priority. The Communications team has a hard deadline. They're submitting the preliminary program to the Executive Council Office next week. And if we want our panel in, we need to be early. Person #3: Understood. I'll make it work. I'll skip lunch. Person #2: Don't skip lunch. That's not healthy. You can—hmm. Do you have anyone on your team who can draft the first version? The new analyst, what's her name? The one who joined from the Central Bank. Person #3: Amna? Yes, she's capable. But she's still learning the government context. She might not capture the nuances. Person #2: She doesn't need to capture the nuances. You'll review it. You'll add the nuances. That's the delegation model. You're the director. You don't write the first draft. You write the final draft. Have Amna draft it. You review, you refine, you send it to me by five. Is that doable? Person #3: Yes. That's doable. Amna can do it. Person #2: Good. And that's the other thing I wanted to talk to you about. Delegation. You're doing too much yourself. I see the ticket logs—you're still the assignee on, I think, forty percent of the team's tasks. That's not sustainable. You're the director. You need to be the reviewer. The approver. The one who handles the escalations. Not the one who writes the first draft. Person #3: I know. I've been trying to delegate more. But it's hard. When I assign something, I end up redoing it anyway. It takes more time to explain than to do it myself. Person #2: That's a short-term cost. In the long term, you're building capacity. And if your team doesn't have capacity, then you need to tell me. I can fight for more headcount. But I can't do that if you're not giving me the evidence. The evidence is you delegating, them struggling, and you tracking that struggle. Person #3: You want me to document the failures? Person #2: Not failures. Gaps. Skill gaps. Development needs. That's what the Tomouh platform is for. You identify the gaps, you build a development plan. And if the gap is too big, you escalate. That's the system. We built it. We should use it. Person #3: I will. I'll start tracking more systematically. Starting this week. Person #2: Good. And speaking of Tomouh—did you see the new module they released? The one on AI literacy for managers? It's mandatory for all DG-level and above. I have to do it by the end of September. And I'm—I'm not looking forward to it. I don't have time. Person #3: I saw it. I've already completed it, actually. I did it on Saturday. Person #2: Saturday? You're working on Saturdays now? That's—wait, I shouldn't be surprised. You're always working. But Saturday? That's a bit much. Person #3: It was quiet. The kids were with their grandmother. And I wanted to get it done. It's not very long. Maybe two hours. The content is mostly common sense. But there's a section on prompt engineering that was interesting. I didn't know you could structure a prompt like that. Person #2: Two hours. Okay. I'll carve out some time on Friday morning. Before the khutba. It's quiet then. Person #3: It is. I sometimes do my reading then. Person #2: Good. Now, another thing. The Mawaheb program. The Undersecretary asked me about the placement numbers. He's getting pressure from somewhere—I think the Crown Prince's office is asking about Emiratisation in the private sector. And Mawaheb is our flagship. What are the latest numbers? Person #3: As of last week, we've placed 1,247 Emiratis in private sector roles since the January intake. The target for the year was 1,500. So we're at eighty-three percent. On track for the full-year target, inshallah. But the quality of placements is the issue. We're getting them into junior roles. Customer service. Admin. But the senior placements are slow. We've only placed, I think, nine Emiratis in management-track positions. Person #2: Nine. That's low. What's the bottleneck? Is it the candidates or the companies? Person #3: Both, honestly. The candidates from the first cohort—they're good, but they lack the experience. The companies want someone who can hit the ground running. And the candidates want a career path, not just a job. So there's a mismatch. The Mawaheb team is working on a new program with the chambers of commerce to create a "management trainee" track. But it's early days. Person #2: The chambers. That's interesting. We don't usually work directly with them. Who's leading that? Is it the same person who did the Calidus partnership? Person #3: No, it's a different person. The Calidus thing was managed by the GovAcademy side. The chambers piece is being led by the Mawaheb team directly. I think they're expecting a pilot in the first quarter of next year. Person #2: Okay. I want to get a briefing on that. Can you set up a meeting? Not now, but in the next two weeks. I want to hear it from them directly. And I want to understand what the success metrics are. Not just placements. Retention. Promotion rates. Salary progression. The real outcomes. Person #3: I'll coordinate with them. I know the lead, she's good. She's very structured. She'll have something ready. Person #2: Good. And speaking of outcomes—the other thing I wanted to ask you about. The standards library. I know you've been working on simplifying the procurement standards. But I'm getting feedback from the Finance Department that the entities are still not using the new templates. They're still sending their old procurement requests. What's the hold-up? Person #3: The hold-up is training. We—I mean, my team—we created the new standards, we published them on the Governance Portal, we sent the comms. But we haven't done the training sessions yet. We were supposed to do them in July, but the implementation got delayed because of the Ramadan schedule and then the summer holidays. We've rescheduled for October. Person #2: October. That's late. The fiscal year starts in January. If the entities are not trained by October, they'll start the new year with the old processes. And then we'll have a mess. Can we move the training up? Maybe do a virtual session in September and the in-person ones in October? Person #3: We could do a virtual session. But the in-person is where the real learning happens. The virtual sessions, the attendance is always low. And people don't ask questions. They just watch and then they close the window. Person #2: I know. But something is better than nothing. And if we do a virtual session, we can record it. Then the entities can watch it at their own pace. And we can track who's watched it. That gives us evidence for the compliance audit in December. Person #3: That's—that's a good idea. I'll set it up. We can use the Tomouh platform to host the recording. That way it's tracked. Person #2: Perfect. Use the existing infrastructure. That's what it's for. Okay. I think I've covered most of what I wanted to say. Let me check my list. Scorecard, rating, summit, delegation, Mawaheb, standards. Have I missed anything? Person #3: There was one thing I wanted to mention. It's about the planning cycle for the ADEC report—the mid-year review. The template we used last time, the one with the traffic-light scoring. It's being revised by the ADEC analysts. I heard from a colleague that they're moving to a new format. The new format is more narrative-heavy. They want fewer numbers, more explanation. Person #2: Fewer numbers, more narrative. That's—hmm. That's a change. Who told you this? Person #3: A colleague in the Executive Council Office. She saw a draft. She said it's a response to the feedback from the last review, where the members felt the scorecard was too technical. They couldn't see the story. Person #2: The story. Right. Okay. Well, that's useful intelligence. Did she say when the new template will be released? Person #3: She said it should be out by the end of September. In time for the Q3 reporting. Person #2: End of September. That gives us about a month to prepare. Good. I need you to keep an eye on that. If you can get me an advance copy of the template, that would be very useful. We can start adapting our internal reporting to match. Person #3: I'll ask her. She's usually willing to share. But I'll need to be careful. I don't want to get her in trouble. Person #2: Of course. Just ask for the general direction. The format, not the content. That's fine. And let me know if there's any training on the new template. If ADEC is offering a session, we should send someone. Maybe Amna. It would be good for her development. Person #3: I'll ask. And I'll make sure we have someone registered in advance. Person #2: Good. Now, one final thing, and then I need to run. I have a call with the GovDigital team in about twenty minutes. The ADERP rollout. They want to discuss the change management plan. And I want your perspective on the organizational readiness assessment we did last month. Did you see the results? Person #3: I did. The overall readiness score was 62%. Which is—it's not terrible, but it's not great. The biggest gap was in the "leadership alignment" dimension. The entity leadership teams are not fully on board. They see ADERP as a finance and HR system, not as a strategic tool. Person #2: That's exactly what I was going to say. The leadership alignment piece is weak. And that's not a GovDigital problem. That's a change management problem. And change management is—well, it's a people problem. Which is in our—well, it's in the Government Talent's lane. But we can't just hand it off. I think we need a joint intervention. Person #3: A joint intervention? What did you have in mind? Person #2: I'm thinking a structured workshop with the entity leadership teams. Not a presentation. A real working session where we walk them through the benefits of the unified system. Show them how it will make their lives easier. And then we address the fears. The loss of control. The fear of transparency. The change in reporting lines. Person #3: That's a good approach. But it needs to be done carefully. If it's too much like a sales pitch, they'll tune out. It needs to be credible. It needs to be honest about the challenges. Person #2: Absolutely. We'll bring in the consultants. The Deloitte team. They've done this before. They know how to run these kinds of sessions. And they have the data. They can show the benchmarks from other governments. Person #3: The Deloitte team. Okay. But they're expensive. I've seen the rates. Person #2: I know. But it's worth it. This is a big investment. The ADERP contract is worth—well, I don't need to tell you. It's big. And if it fails because the people don't use it, then the whole project is wasted. Better to spend a little more on the change management side. Person #3: Agreed. I'll support that. And I can help with the content. I can draft the talking points for the leadership teams. The key messages about what's in it for them. Person #2: That would be helpful. But I don't want you to overcommit. You have the summit panel, the training reschedule, the ADEC template monitoring. That's a lot. Can you delegate the ADERP talking points to someone else? Maybe the senior analyst on your team. What's his name? The one who worked on the service design. Person #3: You mean Rashid? He's good. But he's currently working on the CX Awards submission. The deadline is Friday. Person #2: The CX Awards. Right. I forgot about that. How is that going? Are we in with a chance? Person #3: I think we have a good chance. The TAMM 4.0 redesign is a strong case. We've got good numbers. The user satisfaction score has improved by, I think, 12 points since the launch. And the complaint volume is down by 20%. Person #2: That's excellent. And is the CX team submitting for the "Journey of the Year" category? That's the one we want to win. It's the most visible. Person #3: Yes, they are. They've submitted the "Business Start-Up Journey" as the entry. It covers the full process from the trade license application to the visa issuance to the establishment registration. It's a good story. Person #2: It is. And if we win that, it'll be a big deal. The press will love it. And it'll help with the summit narrative. "We're not just talking about the end of the form. We've actually done it." One submission. That's the story. Person #3: I hope so. I'll keep you updated. The judging is in November. And the winners are announced at the CX Awards ceremony in December. Person #2: December. Just in time for National Day. That would be a nice way to end the year. Okay. I need to go. But before we wrap—did you have anything else? Anything that needs my attention? Person #3: One small thing, and I apologize for bringing it up, but I'm a bit concerned about the feedback I received from the Undersecretary's office about the standards library. They said it's too long. The procurement standards document is, I think, 87 pages. And they want it reduced to, maybe, 20 pages. Which is a big reduction. I'm not sure we can capture the necessary detail in 20 pages. And I'm worried that if we cut too much, the entities will interpret the standards loosely and we'll go back to the ad-hoc procurement behaviors we're trying to eliminate. Person #2: 87 pages. That is long. The Undersecretary is right. Nobody is going to read 87 pages. They will skim it, and then they will call us when they have a question. The whole point of the standards is to reduce the number of questions. So we need a shorter document. But you're right, we can't just cut content. We need to restructure it. Maybe make it a two-tier document. A short policy brief for the leadership and a detailed implementation manual for the procurement officers. Person #3: A two-tier document. That could work. Person #2: Let me think about it. I'll speak to the Undersecretary this week and see if that approach would be acceptable. If he agrees, then you can restructure. But don't start yet. I don't want you to do the work and then have him reject the concept. Person #3: Understood. I'll wait for your direction. Person #2: Good. And don't worry too much about it. It's a solvable problem. We just need to communicate it better. Okay. I really do need to go. Do you—we're good? You're okay with the rating conversation? I know it wasn't what you wanted to hear. Person #3: I'm not happy about it, but I understand the reasoning. And I appreciate you telling me directly. I'd rather know now than be surprised later. Person #2: That's the right attitude. And remember, the rating is just one data point. The confirmation is what matters. And I'll fight for that. You're doing a good job. I mean that. The standards library, the planning cycle, the way you handled the feedback round—you've done well. It's just the alignment piece that's holding us back. And that's a system issue. Not a you issue. Person #3: Thank you. I appreciate that. Person #2: Okay. I'll send you the links for the Brazil and India Stack stuff within the hour. And the summit concept note—by five. And I'll let you know what the Undersecretary says about the standards document. Person #3: Got it. I'll be on the lookout for your email. Person #2: Perfect. Yalla, I'll talk to you soon. Take care. Don't work too hard. And tell Amna she's got a big task. But I'm confident she'll do well. Person #3: I will. Thank you for the call. Good luck with the GovDigital meeting. Person #2: Thanks. I'll need it. Those Oracle guys are—well, you know. Okay. Bye. Person #3: Bye. Person #2: Oh wait, habibti, before you go. I completely forgot. I was going to ask you something and then the Oracle thing—you know how it is. The Undersecretary’s office just sent me a note. They need a one-pager by end of day. For the ADEC scorecard meeting tomorrow. On the standards alignment approach. The thing we were just talking about. Before you restructure anything, they want to see the concept on one page. I know, I know. It’s the same content. But they want it in their format. Person #3: End of day today? Saadat, we have the Tomouh review at eleven, and then I was going to block the afternoon to finalize the Q3 KPI narrative. But I can make time. Is there a template? Or do you want me to pull from the standards document we sent last week? Person #2: No template. Just—you know how the Undersecretary likes it. Short. Three bullets. The problem, the proposed approach, the timeline. And a diagram if you can. Actually, not a diagram. He doesn’t like diagrams. He likes tables. A simple table. Problem, approach, owner, timeline. Four rows max. Can you do that? Person #3: Yes. I can do that. For the owner, should I put myself, or—since it goes through the sector leads—should I put the Strategy sector? Because last time we put the entity names and they pushed back. They said they were never consulted, even though we had their emails. Person #2: Put “Strategic Affairs and Future Foresight” as the owner. That’s us. We’ll take the heat. And for the timeline, use the same dates we agreed with the Undersecretary—October first for the standards lib—wait, no. October fifteenth? Ugh. Let me check. I have it here. Yes, the standards library content freeze is October fifteenth, and the endorsement round is November fifth. Actually, no, that was the previous schedule. The new one after the feedback round—the endorsement moved to November twelfth. Am I right? Person #3: Yes, the endorsement round is November twelfth. The content freeze is still October fifteenth, but we moved the sector validation to November first because ADEK asked for more time. With respect, Saadat, we sent the updated schedule in the email last Tuesday. I assumed everyone had seen it before the feedback round. Person #2: Right, right. The email. I saw it. I just—you know, the Oracle thing has been eating my brain. Those guys, honestly. They keep telling us that the ERP rollout is on track, and then we find out the finance module for Department of Culture and Tourism hasn’t even been tested. I mean, the testing environment is still on the old version. And they say “on track.” Inshallah, at this rate we’ll be “on track” until 2028. Person #3: Yes, I heard the same from the GovDigital team. Yaani, they mentioned it in the integration meeting on Thursday. They said Oracle is pushing back on the penalty clause. But that’s outside my lane, so I didn’t want to—I didn’t want to raise it. Person #2: No, no, you were right not to. We’ll handle that. It’s a different kind of mess. Anyway. The one-pager. End of day. Do you have the numbers handy? The entity count, the compliance rate from the feedback round? I want to put that in the third bullet. Person #3: Yes, I have them. The feedback round covered forty-one of the fifty-three entities—the thirteen service entities plus the twenty-eight support entities. We got responses from thirty-five of them. That’s an eighty-five percent response rate, but we weren’t able to use nineteen of the responses because they were incomplete. So the usable rate is actually fifty-seven percent. We flagged that in the memo. Person #2: Fifty-seven percent. Yes. And that’s—that’s the number the Undersecretary will focus on. He’s going to say it’s not representative. But we can frame it as an engagement issue, not a standards issue. The standards themselves—what was the acceptance score? Was it, like, four point two or something? Person #3: Four point three. Across the usable responses. The entities that did respond were generally positive. The issue is the ones that didn’t respond. We called them—the planning leads at the three largest entities, DoH, ADEK, and DMT—they all said they were too busy with the ERP training. So the timing of the feedback round collided with the Oracle training schedule. That’s the root cause. Person #2: Ah. Wait. That’s a good point. Actually, that changes the framing. The low response rate isn’t apathy; it’s the ERP collision. Should we mention that in the one-pager? Or does it make us look like we didn’t coordinate? I mean, we did coordinate. We pushed the feedback round twice. But the Oracle training was—when did they release the schedule? Last minute, right? Person #3: Yes. The GovDigital team only confirmed the training dates on the second of August, and our feedback round was already live. We considered extending the deadline, but the planning cycle—the ADEC scorecard deadlines are fixed. So we kept it. With respect, Saadat, I think we should mention it. It explains the response rate without blaming the entities. It’s a scheduling collision, not a standards rejection. Person #2: Hmm. You’re right. Let’s put it as a note. Not in the main bullets—a footnote. “Response rate impacted by concurrent ERP training.” Something like that. Actually, I’m going to let the Undersecretary decide. I’ll send him the draft, and he can edit. Just get it to me by three, so I can review it and send it to him before he leaves. He leaves at five today? I think he’s at the Executive Council pre-meeting. But he said he’d be available until four. Person #3: Understood. I’ll compile the draft now. I can use the table format: Problem—low response rate to standards feedback, but existing responses show broad acceptance. Approach—refine the standards library based on the usable feedback and address the ERP collision in the rollout plan. Owner—Strategic Affairs and Future Foresight. Timeline—content freeze October fifteenth, endorsement November twelfth. Does that match what you’re thinking? Person #2: Yes. Exactly. That’s the structure. And then maybe one extra row for “Next steps”—the restructure we discussed, pending Undersecretary approval. But don’t put that in the table yet. Because if he sees the restructure and the timeline together, he might think we’re already planning to change the process. He might say we’re overcomplicating. So keep the table as you said. We’ll mention the restructure only if he asks. Person #3: Good point. I’ll keep it minimal. Also, about the Brazil and India Stack links you mentioned earlier—do you still want me to review them? I don’t want to send the one-pager late because I’m reading case studies. Person #2: No, don’t worry about the links right now. I’ll send them, but you can look at them tomorrow. Or Thursday. They’re not urgent. They’re just—you know, inspiration for the future vision. But the one-pager is urgent. Do that first. And actually, the summit concept note—I said I’d send it by five, but I might not get to it. I’ll send it tomorrow morning. Or I might ask Reem to draft it. You don’t need to worry about it. Person #3: That’s fine. I was just going to block time for it, but I’ll prioritize the one-pager and the KPI narrative. The KPI narrative is due Thursday, right? Or Friday? I have it for Friday, noon, but I saw the calendar invite said Thursday afternoon. I’m a little confused. Person #2: Thursday. It moved up because the Executive Council meeting is the following Monday. The departments’ narratives are due Thursday afternoon, and then the sector lead consolidates on Friday morning. Actually, no, wait. Let me think. The email said—the one from the Executive Council office, which went out last Thursday. It said “KPI narratives due no later than Thursday, September 3, 14:00.” So yes, Thursday afternoon. Friday’s the consolidation. Person #3: Okay. Then I’ll finish the narrative on Tuesday and Wednesday and have it ready for review on Thursday morning. Actually, Tuesday is the 1st, and we have the planning cycle sync at two. Wednesday I have the standards review with the consultants in the morning. So Thursday morning is the earliest I can have a full draft. I’ll make it work. It won’t be a problem. Person #2: You always make it work. I’m not worried. And look, I want you to know—I know this period is intense. The one-pager, the narrative, the standards restructure, the confirmation. It’s a lot. But you’re handling it well. The fact that you’re thinking about the sector’s time, the entity pushback, the scheduling collisions—that’s exactly the kind of rigor we need. I’m glad you’re in this role. You’re doing the right things. Person #3: Thank you, Saadat. I appreciate that. I do feel like—it’s been a steep learning curve, and I’m still adjusting to the acting role. Some days I feel like I’m barely keeping up. But, alhamdulillah, it’s going okay. I just wish there were more hours in the day. Person #2: There’s never enough hours. It’s the same everywhere. We’ll get through this heavy phase. After the ADEC cycle and the endorsement, it’ll ease up. Then we have GITEX—well, GITEX is in October, so that’s another burst. And the World Governments Summit in February is already on the horizon. But we’ll handle it, one step at a time. Don’t let the stress pile up. Take care of yourself too. You’re young. You have a long career. This is just a season. Person #3: Yes. I keep telling myself that. Sometimes it works. By the way, Amna—I saw your email about her task. Do you want me to brief her, or will you speak to her directly? I don’t want to step on your message. Person #2: I’ll speak to her myself, probably today or tomorrow. I just wanted you to know that she’s going to take over the future foresight pilot. I trust her, but she’s never done something so cross-sectoral. So any guidance you give her—share your templates, show her how you track the decisions—that would be useful. But don’t overinvest. You have your own plate. Person #3: Of course. I gave her my tracker last week, and she’s already using it. She’s sharp. She’ll pick it up fast. Person #2: Good. And you—wait, one more thing. I just got a message from the Undersecretary’s office. They want the one-pager by two, not three. He has a meeting at three thirty now. Can you do two? I’m sorry to push. Person #3: Two o’clock. Yes. I’ll cut the Tomouh review—actually no, I’ll attend the Tomouh review and draft during it. I can do both. I’ll send it to you by two. Person #2: Perfect. And if you need anything, I’m in meetings until one, but I’ll check my phone between. You can always send me a message. Okay. Now I really have to go. The Oracle guys are probably waiting. Take care. And send the one-pager. We’re good? Person #3: We’re good. I’ll send it by two. Take care, Saadat. Person #2: Shukran. Bye. Person #3: Bye.