NexusY is the foundation build under Goal 4, Excellence, and the keystone of the FY27-30 technology work. Operational dashboards, automated compliance reporting, financial reconciliation and unified impact measurement all sit on top of it and cannot be built ahead of it. The data governance framework runs alongside.
It is the secure environment where data from our operating systems lands automatically, without anyone touching it. Perfect Gym, SAP, Tanda and Xplor are the core. Others connect as projects need them (Microsoft 365 and SharePoint, Jira, service-specific platforms), and each connection is a deliberate decision based on whether the data is needed for reporting and whether it can be handled safely. Children's Services is live now, the rest follow through FY27.
Sitting over the top is a semantic layer, where we agree and hold the organisation's definitions once (what counts as attendance, revenue, a target) so every dashboard, report and AI answer reads from the same source. Change a definition there and it changes everywhere.
Access is by role, personal information is masked by audience, actions are logged for NQF, and anything touching safeguarding, incidents or financial adjustment requires human approval.
Does it connect to an FY27-30 Key Result, to NexusY, or to a direction set by the CEO or the Board. Is there a real compliance, contractual or safety obligation behind it. What it unblocks for other work, and what it depends on being finished first.
What gets worse the longer it waits, including risks that have no deadline attached. What it returns in money saved or staff time freed. Whether it closes a security or data-risk gap. How many sites, staff or customers actually benefit, and whether that lands across the organisation or in one corner of it.
What it genuinely costs in technology team time, set against what is available in the period. Whether there is a named business owner ready to resource testing and rollout, since technology work succeeds or fails on the business side taking it up. Whether it fits the intended data architecture, or risks fragmenting reporting and setting a precedent by accident.
Approving a project is also a decision not to do something else with the same capacity. Which is why the order on this board matters as much as the list.
So a fixed slice of build capacity is reserved for the queue rather than allocated to named projects. Requests land in Ideas and requests, get verified and sized, then are prioritised at the quarterly review. "When is my thing happening" becomes a position in a queue with a known cadence, instead of a place on a roadmap that never arrives.
No external customer waiting, same people doing it, never competes for the focus slot. Shown here so six months of policy work does not look like six months of nothing.
How to read the focus slots. One focus project per quarter, with its subtasks delegated inside it. Q1 is delivered and Q2 is committed, so the live decisions are Q3 and Q4. Holding and Ideas and requests sit below the grid, since neither is tied to a quarter. Holding is assessed work that does not fit this year. Ideas is the intake tray, where anything new lands until it has been looked at properly.