Learning and development company, pearcemayfield, is taking action against poor management training by launching a ‘Leading Change Summer School’.
John Edmonds, Director of Strategy and Marketing at pearcemayfield explains: -It’s lamentable that there is so much negativity and so many myths about training which is all too often labelled ‘unprofessional’ or ‘boring’. In fact sometimes this is not so much a myth as the usual experience of management training for many people.
-As leaders in our field, we are putting a ban on boring training by providing a series of high quality, high impact learning experiences in the shape of one day workshops, offering the opportunity for people to gain new skills and a recognised qualification over the summer.”
Now, more than ever, good change leaders are being sought after as valuable talent by any organisation looking to exploit the benefits its programmes and projects deliver. Many such organisations now realise that without such skilled people, much investment in change is wasted.
Pearcemayfield’s Summer School offers a range of accredited, one day modules for people who want to gain skills and qualifications fast to help them to stand out as leaders of change. John Edmonds says: -We were hearing people say they had some okay training which made no real difference to their practice afterwards, or that soft skills training is either ‘fluffy’ and useless or else comes embedded in longer courses which take up too much of their time.
-Taking these comments on board, we have distilled the very best of change management skills training into short one day programmes which are ideal for people from any area of business. We don’t set exams at the end of the course, but provide delegates open papers that need to be completed in the workplace to help embed the learning after the course and make it totally in tune with their business.”
The Summer School is a great way of developing the knowledge and skills of programme, project and change management. Every one day course provides an accredited award and the level 4 Certificate in Change Management can be gained by completing 13 credits (the equivalent of 5 one day courses).
The qualification for courses is given by the Centre for Change Management and is accredited by EDI.
West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYFRS) has taken the bold step of releasing CCTV footage of the moment a house exploded, just yards from firefighters and the residents they rescued seconds earlier.
The explosion was caused by interference with an overhead electricity line by thieves attempting to steal the copper conductor.
WYFRS has joined forces with CE Electric UK, Northern Gas Networks and West Yorkshire Police to warn about the dangers of tampering with electricity and gas equipment.
The shocking footage was captured by the brigade’s ‘silent witness’ cameras, attached to fire engines, during an incident in Rhodes Street, Castleford, last Friday (8 July). Crews had been called to reports of a small kitchen fire, but when they arrived found a string of small fires in a row of six terraced houses. Firefighters quickly rescued the occupants from all the houses, including two people from upstairs bedrooms using ladders. As the film shows, only seconds later an explosion tore through the row of homes.
Around 30 people were evacuated, two houses were partly demolished and four further houses suffered extensive fire and blast damage. One firefighter was taken to hospital with minor cuts.
Investigations have revealed that the blast was caused after a piece of cable was cut from an overhead line. This affected the earthing of the electrical network in the area and resulted in some unusual electrical activity, which affected some of the gas pipes within the properties. This resulted in the fires and explosion.
Ian Bitcon, WYFRS senior operations response officer, said: -If the house had exploded only seconds earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have killed or seriously injured the occupants and the firefighters who were risking their lives to rescue them. We can’t stress enough how devastating this could have been. Instead, they lost their homes and possessions rather than their lives.
-We have already had one fatality as a result of cable theft. If people continue to tamper with equipment on the electricity network, it is only a matter of time before more people die.
The incident in Castleford last week affected the electricity supply to 63 properties and the gas supplies to 55 properties.
Geoff Earl, CE Electric UK’s head of health and safety, said: – As a company, on average we are dealing with around five incidents of metal theft on a daily basis. We cannot stress enough how dangerous it is to tamper with electrical equipment on the network. These incidents are a real threat to public safety.
We are pleading with these thieves to think about the consequences of their actions and how much they are risking for such a small return, especially in the light of the recent fatality in Leeds. You really cannot put a price on your own life.
Northern Gas Networks Director of Health Safety and Environment Dave Hutchison said: -This footage sends a clear message to metal thieves targeting electrical and gas equipment – don’t do it. It is extremely dangerous and threatens lives all for the sake of a few pounds.
We continue to see a concerning increase in the number of metal related thefts on our gas network which not only endanger lives but disrupt gas supplies and communities. Our top priority is safety and we always send an engineer to respond to a gas leak within an hour of it being reported. If you smell gas please don’t leave it to someone else to report, call 0800 111 999 immediately – it could be a life-saving call.
DCI Phill Wright, Crime Manager of Wakefield District Division, said: -The consequences of an act like this could have been extremely serious. I would urge anyone who has any information about cable theft to contact Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
At long last some flesh is starting to adhere to the bones of the Green Investment Bank (GIB) that was a centre-piece of the coalition commitments when the government was formed in May 2010. The idea of the GIB is one of the foundations upon which Prime Minister David Cameron built the claim that his would be -the greenest government ever.
Early indications of what the GIB might look like and how it will operate were sketchy and decidedly meagre. The bank’s initial endowment of public funding was to amount to just £1 billion, to be funded out of sales of government assets. That left most of us involved in infrastructure investment underwhelmed. Set against the UK’s infrastructure investment needs this sum looks trivial. For example, it is forecast that the energy sector alone needs some £200 billion of investment in new low-carbon generating capacity by 2020 in order to ensure security of supply and meet targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. In the transport sector, a single project, the proposed high speed rail line from London to Birmingham and the north, is said to be likely to cost over £30 billion.
Subsequently, through the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 and the budget in March of this year, a bit more substance was revealed and the government moved to ensure that the GIB would have some additional resources. Its initial capitalisation was increased to £3 billion, still funded through asset sales. This led some to question the extent of the government’s commitment since asset sales are an inherently uncertain source of revenue. For example, the proceeds of the sale of the Tote, the government-owned on race course betting organisation, are expected to go to the GIB.
Yet the price that the government has obtained (£265 million), is substantially was projected when sale of the Tote was first mooted a few years ago and the structure of the deal means that only about £90 million actually will go to HM Treasury for possible injection into the GIB. Selling at a low point in the economic cycle ultimately may come to be seen as poor value for money in endowing the bank.
Another issue is that the GIB will be publicly owned. This means that any debt it incurs will count towards overall government borrowing. At a time when the single most important priority for government is to drive down borrowing in order to reduce the deficit this, in turn, means that in the short term at least the GIB’s commercial freedoms will be severely constrained in order to meet Treasury priorities. Thus, the bank will not be given borrowing powers until 2015 – ie after the current spending round and at the point when the government hopes that the deficit issues will have been dealt with. (And even then, only if borrowing is falling as a proportion of GDP.)
These concerns about the GIB have been summed up by Jonathan Porritt in his report for Friends of the Earth entitled -The Greenest Government Ever: One Year On.
The report provides the most comprehensive audit yet of the government’s delivery on its green commitments. Given its provenance, one would expect it to find failures and shortcomings. Interestingly, though, Porritt’s conclusions do not rely solely on his own assessment: he frequently cites independent authorities, often within the business community which might be expected to be inherently more cautious on these issues.
His overall conclusion on the government’s record on sustainability makes clear the politics at work within the coalition. He says:
It is hard to find substantive evidence of the Prime Minister using any of his personal political capital to promote more sustainable outcomes off the back of the coalition agreement. Most of the important battles (on the Green Investment Bank, for example) have been lost, and the predominantly hostile orientation of ministers like Eric Pickles, Michael Gove, Francis Maude, Andrew Lansley and George Osborne has clearly established what can only be described as ‘default negativity’ regarding sustainable development in this government.
On the specific details of the government’s position with regard to the GIB, Porritt says:
Although the Green Investment Bank has been welcomed in principle by business and environmental groups, there has been much concern that the Treasury has vetoed plans for borrowing until 2015, on the grounds that any liabilities will appear as part of government debt. … CBI and many businesses have expressed deep disappointment at Treasury’s delaying tactics. It is a particular embarrassment for Chris Huhne, who originally stated that ‘ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend’. Furthermore the additional £2bn pledged in the budget will have to be raised through the sale of future assets, including the highly controversial High Speed Two project. Such receipts are highly speculative. –
Clearly, therefore, the GIB cannot itself take up a significant share of the funding burden. So we need to consider the likely impact of the GIB in the context of rather different considerations. The critical question is: will the involvement of the GIB, even in a small way, be likely to be influential in persuading commercial lenders to free up investment in major infrastructure projects that currently they are unwilling to commit to because the level of risk is perceived to be too high?
The associated question is: if the GIB turns out not to be able to play that catalytic role, will it go for smaller, more ‘innovative’ projects, in effect taking on a technology demonstration role akin to many of the pre-existing government support mechanisms for green technologies?
Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, gave the government’s response to these questions in a recent speech that provided an up-date on government thinking on the design of the GIB. He said:
There are capital funds that want to invest in the green economy and firms bursting to grow but desperate for funds. The role of the Green Investment Bank is to close the gap between the two. Smart investment from the bank will catalyse much greater investment from capital markets.
The government says that the initial £3 billion capitalisation of the GIB will be the catalyst to some £15 billion of conventional investor funding for the sector by 2014/15. Clegg went on to say that the bank’s key role resides in -bridging the gap between investor and innovator. The BIS update document explained that this gap often is a result of perceptions of risk -due to incomplete information. In this context, the government’s view is that ‘incomplete information’ relates to the lack of track record of innovative technologies.
And therein lies the rub. For most of the carbon reduction challenges that we face there are long-established technologies with proven records in terms of both commercial viability and reliability. The reality is that, if the UK is to meet the very ambitious targets that it has set for itself in terms of de-carbonising the economy (especially its medium-term targets to 2020), it is these established technologies that will deliver the overwhelming bulk of carbon reductions. For conventional lenders risk associated with development of projects based on these established technologies resides in factors much closer to government. They include:
Regulatory risk, for example in planning
Policy risk, for example as a result of uncertainty about continuity of direction of travel caused by frequent major policy reviews
Political risk, for example where conflicts between local aspiration and national need are resolved, with an eye to future elections, in favour of local interests.
Unless the government takes concerted action to address these kinds of risks, ‘green’ investment will not move into the mainstream. This would affect the GIB and severely constrain the contribution it can make. Certainly, the £15 billion of private sector investment that the government hopes the GIB will be able to attract into the sector will depend as much (if not more) on resolving these issues as upon the existence of the GIB. If these risks are not mitigated, the GIB will end up playing a niche role as a market development instrument for emerging technologies that may have the potential to play a part in meeting long-term carbon reduction goals but that will not deliver capacity to meet near-term binding obligations.
Nick Clegg said in his speech -we can only succeed on issues like climate change if we lift our chins and look to the horizon, well beyond the next election. A genuine desire to take a long-term view is one of the things that animates this government. But as so many authorities are saying increasingly loudly, it is decisions that this government takes between now and the next election that will determine whether the UK is set on a trajectory to achieve meaningful carbon reduction.
For an essential public body as old and as large as the NHS, reform is inevitable. Whilst this doesn’t mean such reforms are ever uniformly palatable, they are a fact of life and crucial if the NHS is to prosper, especially given the present economic climate. ,
The UK Government’s Health and Social Care Bill stands to be just as divisive as any other preceding set of reforms, and the NHS Future Forum’s recommendations seem to have engendered even greater discord in the debate. However, it appears inevitable that the amended reforms, which will now incorporate more than 16 of the Future Forum’s recommendations, will come into effect and change the face of the NHS for decades to come.
For anyone involved in building and maintaining health and care facilities, both in the private and public sector, these reforms are going to have far-reaching consequences. In conjunction with this, the sector is faced with the constant need to respond to changing patient demands and social pressure. Built environment professionals need to understand these issues if they are to implement cutting edge health and care environments. While the health sector is being affected by a range of factors, there are three key areas that the built environment needs to focus on.
Impact of Policy Reforms on Design and Construction
In a recent interview, health secretary Andrew Lansley claimed that the NHS could be facing a potential funding gap of £20 billion by 2015 with expenditure reaching £130 billion by this point . This is despite the Government providing an additional £11.5 billion in funding. There are many reasons why NHS costs are going to rise so dramatically over the next few years, including an aging population and the corresponding increase in chronic diseases, as well as better informed patients demanding new and more expensive treatments.
To curb spiralling costs, the NHS has to make tough choices as to how resources are allocated. With cuts to front-line services, treatments and staff considered a last resort, the easier option is to cancel or postpone new facilities, and reduce the money spent on refurbishment and maintenance. However, the need for new sites remains, and it will be up to those responsible for securing these construction projects to demonstrate the value they deliver. And while the NHS has always had to face up to the problems of demand being greater than the resources available, the situation isn’t getting any easier. This is going to be a key consideration for the way in which the built environment interacts with the health sector.
Competing for care
Increasing the level of competition between different facilities, both private and public was at the heart of the healthcare reforms originally proposed by the Government. The idea was that it would result in a greater quality of care, since facilities would be forced to maintain high standards in order to attract patients. In the amendments to the reforms based on the Future Forum’s recommendations however, the competition aspect of the bill is scaled back.
Monitor, the public body originally responsible for overseeing competition in the health and care sector, will now also be responsible for promoting collaboration and integration. Encouraging competition is still recognised as a ‘tool for supporting choice, promoting integration and improving quality’ , as Steve Fields, chairman of the Future Health Forum confirmed recently. Although he argued that it should never be used ‘as an end in itself’.
Clearly, competition is becoming a bigger part of the NHS, and is something that the built environment is going to need to play a larger role in as free-market ideas gain more prominence across the health sector. This pressure is only going to get larger as patients increasingly turn to providers of private care. While patients will be judging private and public providers on waiting times and available treatments, the quality of the facilities they are visiting will also play an important part in their final decision.
On top of this, it is a simple matter of cost. In order to compete effectively, both now and in the future, sites need to deliver value for money. It is the built environment that is going to be the key facilitator in delivering cost effective and attractive facilities to help providers compete in the healthcare market.
Keeping up with the trends
In addition to the Government’s NHS reforms, the built environment sector needs to adapt to meet the challenges presented by growing social and economic trends. There are so many factors at work, it is virtually impossible to list them all, but even by skimming the surface, it is clear that the way in which health and care facilities are built and managed is going to have to change.
For example, Private Finance Initiatives, the scheme through which health trusts can outsource the cost of building and maintaining care facilities, are a constant expense for many NHS Trusts. Attempts to renegotiate monthly repayments will become more common as the NHS looks for ways to improve available resources. At the same time, there may be an increase in the number of PFI projects. New health care facilities are always going to be required, but given that the NHS won’t have the necessary resources for the foreseeable future, PFIs will offer the only viable alternative.
Contractors and architects will therefore need to reassess how the change in the NHS’ relationships with PFIs will be affected. In addition, the way in which facilities are built and maintained must adapt in response to changing health demands from the public. For example, with hospital-borne diseases like MRSA constantly in the media, the need to update existing facilities and equipment to reduce the risk of infection is paramount. And with the standards of care that patients expect from their NHS trust always under scrutiny, care providers must ensure that the facilities they provide are modern and efficient.
The built environment will therefore continue to be an integral part of the way in which care is delivered in the UK, and the health and care sector will be increasingly reliant on its ability to adapt and support it in ensuring that patient needs continue to be met.
Conclusion
The NHS reforms result in a state of flux within the health and care sector. Although the NHS Future Forum has presented its findings, and confirmed how the reforms are going to be delivered, there is still much confusion as to how they will affect the way in which health and care facilities are built, managed and maintained.
From architects and facility managers to local authorities and contractors, everyone involved in the health and care built environment is going to have to readdress how they serve the needs of the NHS and private sector health and care providers. Together, they must ensure that the sector remains healthy and profitable, and be able to guarantee that patient care maintains a high standard.
The process of writing the amended Health and Social Care Bill into law will take some time. Even with additional amends being introduced, the built environment clearly needs to scrutinise the changes and make adequate provisions for adapting to the changing landscape.
The changes set to sweep the health and care industry are going to be far reaching, and for those involved in the built environment, it is vital to understand exactly how the reforms affect them.
The recent resignation of Christine Connelly as the Department of Health’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) should not have come as a surprise. Anyone who has followed the progress of £11.4-billion Nation Programme for IT transformation (NPfIT) will be acutely aware of quotes including -no grounds for confidence , -not value for money , -far below expectations, -a damage limitation exercise that leapt from the pages of the National Audit Office’s report into this ill-starred IT colossus.
It’s not as if we haven’t seen it coming. This is the third time the NAO has looked at this project and found it wanting and almost since its inception back in 2002, there has been a steady stream of bad news.
Within a year of commissioning, the deadline was slipping; two years in and a key clinician quit blaming a lack of engagement and that same year BT, one of the four major suppliers, was hit with its first fine for missing a deadline. By 2006, the NAO revealed the programme was running at least two years behind schedule with costs likely to hit £12.4bn; and at the end of 2007 Richard Granger, brought in the year before to lead the project, quit.
The following year, weeks after news from the NAO that further delays meant the project would not be completed until 2014/15 Fujitsu was fired from its £900m role. Last year, BT agreed a deal to install fewer systems for not much less money and the government admitted that the goal of electronic records for 55m patients was not going to be achieved as the scope of the project was cut again.
The recent NAO report, triggered by MP Richard Bacon, is quite rightly damning and must make the powers that be face up to what many in IT have been saying for years â€- the programme is a joke and government should consider taking the hit and abandon it all together. Meanwhile his parliamentary colleague Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, publicly raises the question of who should carry the can. A side show that will be interesting to follow but will not make a jot of difference to the outcome: a wasted opportunity and a disgusting waste of taxpayers’ money.
Implementing one of the world’s largest IT projects was never going to be easy, but basic mistakes have repeatedly been made. The focus has always been on the technical delivery of the IT, not managing the change and the multitude of stakeholders. As a result, the problems that came out of the lack of management, supplier accountability, the failure to proactively communicate, along with cultural challenges, have been allowed to persist and combined have brought the project to the brink. All could and should have been addressed long ago, but there was no one to do it.
In the private sector, any programme worth even a fraction of this one would have employed proven project and programme management expertise to sit on top, to oversee such an important transformation and manage all the stakeholders.
Given the complexity of this programme it was crucial to have independent programme management with industry experience of large scale transformation – who were not involved in the technical/operational delivery and who could execute the plan and drive progress. Instead, the suppliers were advising government and therefore had control of both the programme and operational delivery.
In addition, an independent firm responsible for delivery of the whole programme would have put considerably more emphasis on a robust and overarching framework for managing stakeholders, change and culture, engaging users such as the clinicians early on. From this, a sound communications and engagement strategy would have flowed, a prerequisite on any successful programme.
Lastly, the way the centralised procurement for NPfIT was undertaken also begs significant question. While a noble intent, it was a mistake to put a commercial value on the programme before specific requirements were finalised. You can’t quantify a cost without knowing what you’re buying. This has only resulted in downstream problems in executing technical delivery together with damaging supplier partner relationships with the client. So, almost £3bn later, we’re left in the position where the taxpayer is still footing the bill, but receives far less than was promised in return.
Ms Hodge’s desire to bring to account those responsible for this national failure is laudable. Sadly, there are too many to name and they are in the end only bit players. It is also worth keeping in mind that no country has found it easy to create an electronic patient record, but that is no excuse for the state of NPfIT.
Delivering a programme five months late is unacceptable, but running five years behind has to be a first. And, rather worryingly, there is still little in the way of accountability for its far reaching failures.
Marc Cetkowski is head of government and public sector at PIPC, a global project management consultancy responsible for some of the world’s highest profile business and IT transformations. www.pipc.com
Reports that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is working with Connecting for Health to improve data security in the NHS are good to hear, says Idappcom, but adds the data traffic analysis and security specialist, if the problem is – as has been reported – systemic in nature, then more radical action may be needed.
According to Ray Bryant, CTO of Idappcom, with approaching three per cent of the UK’s adult population now employed by the NHS, logic suggests that a sizeable number of these employees will – for one reason or another – be unlikely to fully take on board the reasons why IT security needs to be addressed in everything they do.
“Most NHS staff – who do an excellent job by the way – understand they should not discuss patients outside of work, and also not compromise the patient’s personal information in any shape or form, but it’s a long way between securing a buff folder in a hospital environment to understanding why data held on a USB stick needs to be secure,” he said.
“And this is what IT security professionals call stakeholder buy-in – a fundamental understanding of why security rules are in place and that staff need to do everything possible to maintain the integrity of those rules,” he added.
Bryant went on to say that, in an ideal world, every member of staff in the NHS – and any other organisation for that matter – would understand why security is needed, and defend their organisation’s data integrity at all times.
But in the real word, he says, people go out of an evening, stop out late and, after feeling tired the next day, make a mistake with a USB stick, smartphone or laptop – which is where good IT security defences really come into their own.
These defences, he adds, step in and do the electronic equivalent of asking the person `do you really want/need to do this?’ or even simply blocking the member of staff from performing what appears to be a silly or mis-informed action.
But in order to complete these actions effectively, Bryant says, the IT security needs to be pervasive, and that means that its efficiency and overall ability to protect data at all times needs for be reviewed and verified on an ongoing basis.
IT security has become a multi-faceted problem. The people who want access to systems, data or money have learnt to probe any weakness, whether that be social engineering or just gathering information that allows entry, careless conversations, insecure mobile storage or access to central systems. Let’s not forget the more common access through the hacking techniques. Reports of USB’s being dropped in car parks, laptops left on trains and emails opened with ‘backdoors’ in them make good news. There is no doubt the human element has been sensational but we must never forget that these incidents are small in number compared to the millions of attempted hacks via intrusion from outside to inside networks.
“Budgets are hard pressed,” said Bryant. “Never let your efforts be distracted by what is in the news when a few pounds spent on enhancing your defences can dramatically improve your mitigation capability at the network perimeter (IPS/IDS/Firewall).”
There is a major difference between creating a security culture and real technical improvement to defences. Both are essential but the process of developing policies, culture and then training thousands of staff is an expensive and long process. Improving the Intrusion detection at the point of connection to the outside world is available now, can be virtually immediate, and has very little cost involved.
“And this is what IT security professionals like to undertake regular security audits and efficiency tests, It’s not for their own good, or because they like doing them. It’s because they are a must-have in today’s IT-pervasive workplace,” he said.
“And with the NHS employing around 1.3 million members of staff in one shape or another, the IT security systems that defend private and personal data at all times need checking and auditing on a regular basis. This is why we think that the ICO needs to mandate the various NHS bodies to go much further on their ITsec audits than they do at present,” he added.
“If this does not take place, then the NHS security faux pas will continue. Not because the IT security defences are inadequate, but because of the sheer volume of data that is handled on a day-to-day basis.”
The present wave of public sector strikes is clearly stoked by a deep well of discontent among public service workers.
Last Week’s strike is ostensibly about Government plans to reform public sector pension schemes but other points, which are fuelling the strikes, are anger are pay freezes and reductions in public funding and loss of jobs.
The political reality is that there is a broad consensus among the general public that the public sector deficit must be reduced and eliminated although there will always be controversy about the pace of reduction and where the axe should fall. One thing to dismiss is the idea that the cuts can be dealt with through efficiency savings – they cannot.
Real cuts in public services are inevitable and jobs will be lost. If we look at what other countries have done some (e.g. Spain) have gone for reductions in public sector pay and smaller job losses. Such an approach might be applied in the UK and could save many thousands of jobs. However, it would create a huge dilemma for trade unions, what is the most important thing to protect, the pay of members in employment or the numbers employed
Another factor to consider is what is called the inter-generational balance. People like me, the so-called baby boomers, had the advantage of free university places, a free NHS and a final salary pension scheme. The reality is that as we get older we will be placing increasing burdens on the health and social care system and extracting pensions for our state schemes well above what we have contributed to the scheme. Forget -soaking the rich or – squeezing the bankers. It will not happen other than through tokenism. The only people who can pay for this are our children and grandchildren who face university loans, high mortgage payments and inadequate pensions. Are we being fair to future generations by trying to protect our own benefits.
Malcolm Prowle
Malcolm is currently is currently professor at Nottingham Business School and a visiting professor at the Open University Business School. He has over 40 years’ experience of public services (in the UK and overseas) and has held senior financial management posts in public service organisations. He also had many years consultancy experience with two international consulting firms (KPMG and PWC) involving clients in the UK and overseas. He has held several academic posts in UK universities and is an active researcher on public sector themes which have led to published research reports and papers. He has worked at the highest levels of government and has advised Ministers, Ambassadors, senior civil servants, public service managers and service professionals on a variety of public policy and policy implementation issues. He has also been: financial adviser to a House of Commons Select Committee, adviser to two shadow ministers and a consultant to the World Health Organisation. He has over fifty publications to his name including five books, numerous research reports and papers in both academic peer refereed and professional journals. Below is information about his sixth book.
Public Services in an era of austerity: How do we dig ourselves out of the hole?
By Roger Latham and Malcolm Prowle
Much has been written about the current state of public services and public finances in the UK and worldwide. However, there is a danger that the current crisis is seen as one which is only differentiated from the past by its depth and longevity. There is an unwillingness to face up to the fact that a reversion to the “business as usual” approach to crisis management will be inadequate to meet the challenges facing public services. Instead the current crisis should be instead be seen as a watershed in our social and economic history and one which requires considerable thought about among other things,
the role of the state in public service provision,
the balance between individual and collective responsibility,
the organisational structure and delivery of public services, how such services are to be paid for.
Many have suggested that the UK is the most centralised country’s in the in the world and its current model of government is not adequate to meet the current challenges. Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. If we would look truthfully at our behaviour as leaders, we’d have to admit that we’re fast becoming insane.
As the stakes get higher, as citizens get angrier and more impatient, as politicians make increasingly unreasonable promises, as experts compete and clamour for attention, as problems grow more complex and become more intractable, our default response is to keep applying the old solutions over and over again. Given the likely social, demographic and economic – futures – to be faced by the UK it is imperative that we make radical changes to our governmental structures and the way in which public services are planned and managed.
Thus there is an imperative to move away from the centralised – command and control – approach applied in the UK and to move towards new paradigms that involve greater regional and local decision making which respects local choices. This transformational change will not be easy since there are huge vested interests in retaining the current model.
This book looks at what needs to be done using the UK as a case study but with potential application in other countries
Earlier this month DRS Data Services Ltd was one of the key sponsors joining The Association of European Election Officials (ACEEEO) at its 20th anniversary conference in Budapest, Hungary, the country where the Association was founded.
One of the main activities of the Association is to support the independence and professionalism of the Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) in Europe and other ACEEEO member states and this is a key reason why DRS chose to support the Association as a conference sponsor. At this year’s 20th anniversary event one of the key topics for discussion and debate was the introduction of voting technologies. DRS Head of Elections, Sonya Anderson, explains;
-As a global leader in the provision of election technologies, working in partnership with electoral management bodies, commissions and international advisory bodies and NGOs, DRS fully supports many of the world’s election associations. We believe the work of the ACEEEO is crucial in maintaining the integrity, independence and impartiality of EMBs across Europe and in highlighting best practice with regards to the modernisation of the electoral process and the use of technology to facilitate this.”
The Conference discussed various aspects of the activities of independent EMBs and establishing guarantees for democratic, free and fair elections. There was considerable discussion and debate regarding the unquestioned role that technology plays in this.
DRS is continually working with and supporting organisations in over 60 countries on significant large scale, time-critical and complex projects and has first-hand experience working with established and emerging democracies, providing election technologies for both the casting and counting of votes and also the initial establishment of a secure and robust voters list. DRS solutions bring the benefit of speed and accuracy while ensuring the security of results, helping to ensure greater transparency of the electoral administrative processes.
Renovo Employment Group is to launch a revolutionary new 24-hour telephone and online career development product, designed specifically to support the new Work Programme, at this years’ UK Welfare to Work Convention.
Renovo’s Career Advancement Programme (CAP) is a powerful new service that allows prime and subcontractor providers to deliver a much more cost effective, distance based in work support package to thousands of people returning to work. The CAP incorporates measures to alleviate new time and financial pressures imposed by the Work Programme whilst ensuring that providers still achieve their objectives in maximising outcomes and delivering sustainable employment.
David Twiddle, Chief Executive at Renovo comments, -The new Work Programme outlines that providers are to be paid at a rate set by outcomes rather than input. Realistically this means that payments could be held for up to two years of satisfactory job sustainment which adds new challenges for providers and requires a fresh and innovative approach to delivery. With the entire risk and funds being linked to the ‘sustainment period’ providers are starting to look at how vastly increased caseloads can be managed more effectively.
The CAP means that contractors can effectively outsource the entire process of monitoring candidate progress in their new role, saving time and money, and that is why we have already been appointed to assist the Work Programme in some areas of the UK following the government appointment of ‘prime providers’
Renovo’s CAP includes a dedicated one to one guidance package where each customer has their own Work Coach available by telephone, email and text for the duration of the programme. Each customer is also provided with access to -Workfriend, a new interactive online portal containing factsheets, videos and e-learning across a host of topics relating to support at work, skills and progression.
Workfriend is also available as a phone app, allowing those without ready access to computers to benefit from the resources. A 24/7 helpline provides access to counselling, financial and legal advice as well as acting as a crisis intervention service.
Employer engagement is also not forgotten. Employers can access a dedicated area of Workfriend to access a wealth of information on HR and People Management issues including supporting the health and wellbeing of employees. Renovo’s dedicated Manager Support helpline provides direct access to specialist advice, particularly useful for SME employers.
Twiddle continues, -Renovo’s delivery model can support employability and job search programmes, in work support and learner support. We have also created a dedicated Rural Employment Programme to meet the needs of those customers who find it challenging to attend employment training sessions in person.
Renovo has previously achieved outstanding results through its bespoke programmes working with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and Jobcentre Plus where it has helped over 20,000 jobseekers back on the road to work over the last two years.
A full demonstration can be seen on Stand 44 at the Welfare to Work Convention 2011 held at Manchester Central on the 30th June and 1st July.
Recycle for Greater Manchester (R4GM) has announced the launch of its brand new iPhone App. Developed by local e-commerce specialists, boxsail, the App has been designed to make it easier for residents to reduce, re-use and recycle their waste. Responding to the growing popularity of mobile technology, the free to download App is available for the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
Whether it’s finding the nearest Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) or bike re-use scheme, the R4GM App offers a quick and easy way to access information. Its brings together many useful features from what to do with a piece of furniture you no longer want to what you can put in your recycling container.
Councillor Neil Swannick, Chair of GMWDA commented on the App: -Recycle for Greater Manchester’s iPhone App makes it easier for Greater Manchester residents to access useful information on the go, to help reduce, re-use and recycle their waste. This is one step of many, to help towards Greater Manchester fulfilling its ambition of zero waste to landfill.”
The Ministry of Justice today confirmed that it has entered into a radical new contract with BAE Systems Detica to provide security services through a managed service arrangement.
The contract will cover a full spectrum of information assurance and cyber security services. Detica will focus initially on support and advice around the Ministry’s IT architecture, its security policy, governance and risk management and compliance with regulatory requirements. It will also advise on cyber security and protective measures.
Optional components include security testing, protective monitoring of both internal and external activity, and forensics.
This announcement follows a hard fought competition using the Office of Government Commerce Buying Solution framework.
The engagement offers a significant benefit from traditional security engagements in that it provides a very efficient way for the MoJ to secure a wide range of information assurance and cyber security services through one supplier, thus enabling a substantial cost saving.
Traditionally departments have augmented their security teams through the use of contractors, often in response to temporary requirements. These arrangements have led to an ad hoc mix of suppliers and teams which doesn’t always deliver the desired result within budget.
Detica will provide an on-going service to the MoJ which should enable the MoJ to make substantial cost savings around its security requirements and transfers delivery risk from the MoJ to Detica by being outcome based. Performance metrics will be gathered to monitor efficiency and allow the service to improve over time.
Bob Nicholls, Head of Information Assurance (Information Communication Technology), Ministry of Justice comments: -This contract introduces a new way of working for my ICT IA team and we anticipate it will deliver real benefits to the Ministry of Justice, both in terms of security and cost efficiency. Protecting the Ministry’s data and systems is vital to the smooth running of the Justice system and we look forward to working together closely with BAE Systems Detica to achieve this.”
Vicki Saward, Head of Detica’s Government Practice said:
-As security and cyber threats increase, we are delighted to be supporting the Ministry of Justice in this critical area. We believe this new approach to security provision will allow the MoJ to commission more security work at lower cost and could effectively save them as much as 30 percent in yearly IA costs.
-We hope that the benefits delivered to MoJ will show the rest of Government that a change to the traditional contractor or consulting approach to security can offer significant benefits.”
The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) will saw a new President take up the mantle last week.
Matthew Lugg assumed duties as the 121st President on 17 June 2011, succeeding George Batten from Wiltshire Council.
Matthew will add his year in office, to his wide-ranging list of responsibilities which include Director of Environment and Transport at Leicestershire County Council, lead of the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) Operations Delivery work stream and Chair of the Midland Highway Alliance, in which he was a founding influence.
It is also has also recently been announced that he is soon to become Chair of the Department for Transport’s review into the long-term solution for pot holes.
Matthew Lugg said: -I am really looking forward to my time in office. Over the next year, the goal is to expand the membership across the country, improving the representation of the sector with a view to effecting a more a comprehensive influence.
-There is also a plan to develop the engagement strategy with the present and future members by developing sub-national groups.”
ADEPT was formed in 2010 as a result of a move to broaden its remit from that of the former County Surveyors’ Society (CSS) whose primary focus was on transport.
The Association consists of key local authority chief officers who provide strategic direction to some of the most pressing issues in transport, waste management, environment, planning, energy and economic development issues facing local authorities the UK today.
ADEPT is a centre of technical expertise with its members ensuring that much of the nation’s vital infrastructure is managed, maintained and constantly improved. The Association also engages with central Government to share expertise and discuss current and future issues.
For more information, visit the ADEPT website www.adeptnet.org.uk
Leading treatment specialists, Japanese Knotweed Control has appointed Dee Laverty (42) as regional director for the south and south east and heading up its London office.
The company’s decision to open an office in the capital follows its continued success with a number of London borough councils as well as on treatment projects for high profile clients such as The Royal Parks at Regent’s Park, Greenwich Park and Primrose Hill.
Camden-based Dee, who has a career background in horticulture and landscaping, took up her new position last month but has already worked closely with Japanese Knotweed Control to identify and address treatment opportunities across London and the South East.
A graduate in landscape architecture at Kingston University and a keen botanist, Dee went on to set up her own landscape company working primarily with local councils and housing associations. It was through this work that she first encountered the problem of Japanese Knotweed and other invasive weeds and the difficulty of finding reliable treatment solutions.
With most London borough councils only licensed to use glyphosate herbicide on knotweed treatment, many are reluctant to use spray treatment methods in urban areas because of the risk of drift spray, run-off or contamination. As a result, the stem injection system introduced by Japanese Knotweed Control has proved increasingly popular and its environmental benefits and proven effectiveness will be a key part of Dee’s armoury alongside traditional methods such as excavation and root barrier treatments.
Commenting on her appointment joint managing director David Layland said: “Opening a London office has been a priority for some time as our business has continued to expand across the South East. In Dee we have recruited someone that not only has a keen interest in our industry and the environment but also has some excellent business contacts particularly in the public sector and we are delighted to have appointed her as regional director.”
The practice of recovery audit is widely adopted in the private sector as an important component of any drive towards efficient operation. Until recently, the public sector was far more cautious.
In essence, recovery audit takes transaction data, transforms it for analysis, identifies errors, and works with suppliers or providers to recover overpaid cash.
The prospect of an external agency combing through up to six years of spend data to seek out anomalies has not been greeted with open arms. However, attitudes are beginning to change.
At a time of government pressure to find savings fast, an increasing number of senior civil servants are learning to embrace this kind of scrutiny. In stark financial terms, recovery audit generates money by recouping cash that has leaked out as a result of accidental overpayments.
The Home Office and Department for Transport are two bodies that have recently embarked on recovery audit programmes, with highly rewarding results.
Adam Simon, global managing director of business development at PRGX – the world’s leader in the field of the recovery audit – believes there are still some misconceptions about recovery audit that need to be addressed. -Our first priority is to banish once and for all the mistake that recovery audit represents a finger-pointing exercise with the sole purpose of singling out those responsible for payment errors. The fact is that overpayments occur in all organisations, particularly large organisations dealing with a large volume of transactions. As a company, we have never once encountered an organisation without any overpayments in their data. They are inevitable. The function of recovery audit is not to blame, but to help.
PRGX is so confident of this that the costs of its service are based on a small percentage of the amount that is recovered. In simple terms, it’s a ‘no win, no fee’ arrangement.
Jon Francis, client services director at PRGX, says there are particular reasons that make recovery audit even more relevant than ever. -Organisations undergoing significant structural change are particularly vulnerable to leakage in their payment systems, he said. – The administrative transitions that the public sector has undergone in recent years, and continues to do so, make this a pressing concern.
When you combine that with the political drive to achieve efficiency savings while protecting frontline services as far as possible, a compelling case for recovery audit begins to emerge.
Yet an innate hesitancy still remains in some quarters. One reason is the highly confidential nature of the particular information that comes under the microscope. This is where the discretion of the recovery audit agency becomes vitally important. The best organisations in this sector are highly sensitive in their approach, not only when poring over up to five years’ worth of classified data but also in dealing with suppliers in the process of recovering money. It is a process that benefits from having a third-party agency involved to conduct negotiations that are fair, but also firm.
However, deriving maximum value from recovery audit isn’t just about a one-off result. The longer-term benefit is in identifying instances where procedures or policies could be improved to reduce the occurrence of payment errors in the future.
Typically, a list of recommendations will follow from the findings of a recovery audit, but it is up to the organisation concerned to act upon them. Thankfully, the majority do so. In the experience of PRGX returning to conduct a second audit within a year of the first, there is generally a 50 per cent reduction in cash leakages. However, the commitment to efficiency has to come from the very top of an organisation. Where this happens, organisations can gain a raft of new insights into their relationships with suppliers.
A common concern is that the process could irreparably damage relationships with suppliers. In fact, by exploring those relationships and generating detailed spending data that may never have been accurately and comprehensively compiled before, both sides can move forward on a platform of greater clarity and openness.
Many suppliers are unintentional recipients of overpayments and are keen to learn how to avoid similar problems in the future. The recovery audit process not only benefits those who procure, but it also provides an opportunity to identify ways in which suppliers can honour the terms of their contracts more effectively.
Jon Francis explains: – Our approach is threefold. First, we analyse the data provided by a client to identify payment errors. Second, we work to recover the outstanding cash – a process that usually takes between three and six months. Third, we examine what went wrong, and suggest ways to improve systems in future, and reduce leakage.
The long-term benefits of recovery audit are rapidly outweighing the initial caution that has greeted the concept in the public sector. The question is, can civil servants afford to ignore this compelling case any longer?
Up to 30 per cent of UK hospitals could be transporting diagnostic specimens in medical bags that may not stand up to international guidelines, according to research by specialist supplier Versapak.
UK-based Versapak has reviewed market data which suggests that many hospitals may not be using bags that carry proof of compliance, either because they are unaware of the relevant guidelines, or their supplier has not provided the necessary certification to demonstrate full compliance.
Versapak worked closely in consultation with the Department for Transport (DfT) five years ago to develop a range of medical bags that would comply fully with the newly-introduced PI650 packaging instructions contained within guideline UN3373.
An awareness campaign was launched at the time but Versapak fears that many hospitals still may not be able to confirm beyond doubt whether the bags they use are compliant.
The guideline refers to ‘Category B’ substances, usually non-infectious blood and organ samples, being transported for testing, and specifies that packaging should comprise a primary receptacle, secondary packaging and outer packaging. The first two elements should be leak-proof and the overall package must be marked with the code ‘UN3373’ and be strong enough to pass a drop test of at least 1.2m.
Versapak group sales director Steve Waller said: -Before the new guidelines were introduced, there were alarming stories of diagnostic specimens being carried around in everything from cardboard boxes to toolboxes. That clearly had huge implications for hygiene and security which needed to be addressed. There were also concerns from transport and logistics professionals in the health sector about the comfort and safety of staff carrying around heavy or cumbersome vessels like that.
-What we aimed for was to design a new type of bag, which had a sufficiently robust structure and secure seals to comply with the guidelines. We made sure that our bags could survive the drop test completely unscathed and, with every order received, we provide the certification that confirms this.
-Having spoken to medical transport staff as part of our research, we were also very keen to make sure our bags were comfortable and user-friendly, so we developed a soft outer shell with carry handles.”
Versapak has supplied bags to approximately two-thirds of NHS hospitals, private hospitals and clinics since launching the approved range, but is urging the remainder to make sure they have proof that their bags meet all the criteria of the UN3373 guidelines.
-Take-up of the compliant Versapak bags has been very good but we’re mindful that there are a large number of hospitals that haven’t yet placed orders with us. We simply want to help ensure they feel comfortable that the particular bags they are using are in line with the UN3373 guidelines.”
Versapak supplies a wide range of compliant products to hospitals including secure and tamper-evident bags for blood, vaccines, specimens, pathology samples, X-rays and medical records.
Established in 1973, Versapak (International) Ltd has two main design and manufacturing divisions: tamper evident reusable pouches and bags, and mailroom furniture and equipment.
Today, Versapak’s products are widely used and many are custom-made. They include specially-manufactured pouches for Royal Mail, protective hold-alls for the NHS and cash handling bags for leading retailers.
Further information is available at www.versapak.co.uk
July 2010 saw Maidstone Council embark on a year-long trial initiative with the Xfor Group, a local authority support services provider, in order to supplement its existing environmental enforcement team. Xfor’s Michael Fisher looks at how the initiative has fared.
Maidstone Council contacted us last year with a view to developing their litter enforcement programme. While some enforcement work was being undertaken, it became apparent that there wouldn’t be capacity within the council’s existing team to provide a dedicated litter enforcement service. Littering, particularly cigarette litter, was a major problem in the area.
What the council required was a firm-but-fair team that would be able to deal with the unique pressures associated with the role of litter enforcement. Our experience in this area of work and our cost-neutral approach meant we were a perfect fit.
In July 2010 we embarked on a six-month trial initiative, providing five fully-trained enforcement officers.
The primary role of the officers is to issue fixed penalties to members of the public caught dropping litter. Additionally, the officers have a secondary role in educating members of the public with regard to the impact litter has on the environment, and the benefits of disposing of their litter in a sustainable manner.
Critics of these schemes have claimed they are a costly exercise for councils, implemented during a time when councils should be looking to make savings. However, the cost for the supply of the environmental officers is essentially self-financing. It is funded solely through the penalties paid by those who commit litter and dog fouling offences.
All Xfor environmental officers are trained in legislation and are subject to vetting processes prior to deployment.
Aside from stationery (FPNs, notebooks) the real cost to the local authority is incurred through the use of legal services, such as the cost of taking to court a percentage of those people who don’t pay FPNs. However, this is vitally important, as it reinforces the message that if people don’t pay there is a high possibility that they will be summonsed to court where more often than not those prosecution costs are recovered.
Trying to change behaviour is difficult. Since we began our contract with Maidstone Council, we’ve issued nearly 4,000 fixed penalty notices, but the impact on the town has been significant. There is clear evidence that the Maidstone public are now using the bins and smoking receptacles provided by both the council and private businesses within the town centre.
Martyn Jeynes, Environmental Enforcement Operations Manager holds on to this belief -as those responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of our borough we took the opportunity to take a stance and really change behaviour. It continues to have its challenges and moments of difficulty but overall we maintain our belief that the opportunity presented by the partnership with Xfor provides a unique opportunity for the public and private sector to join forces and really start to change behaviour and restore civic pride into their borough and our big society.”
Productivity is the new public sector watchword. From NHS to local government and police forces, chief executives are assessing just how to cope with an escalating workload with a fast declining budget and significant cuts in personnel. Laudable attempts to fast track change are now revealing real productivity problems, from unforeseen end user impact of intermittent mobile connections to devices that are not locked down and that pose significant security concerns. Cloud computing, flexible working and freeing up office space by enabling individuals to work from home offer significant benefits, but have a down-side for mobile users.
But as Simon Pettit, Corporate Director at Stone, explains, while leveraging mobile technologies to cut costs is an excellent strategy, strong cooperation between IT, procurement and finance will be key to achieving a workable, secure and appropriate solution that delivers both financial benefits and productivity gains.
Cost v Productivity
As the public sector cuts continue to bite, organisations are taking positive, often radical, steps to transform efficiency and effectiveness. But these strategies have got to work – and fast. The key is for the end user behaviour when away from the office to be exactly the same as it would be in the office. There is no point closing offices and offering staff the chance to work from home if they have poor access to corporate services; if mobile connectivity is continually dropping out; or if the remote solution is so inherently and irreparably insecure that it jeopardises essential GSi Code of Connection (CoCo) compliance.
Yet such problems are now endemic. Public sector organisations have been forced to make such rapid change – implementing new mobile and remote working strategies without the usual pilot studies” that many of these issues are now coming to the fore to threaten promised project return on investment, and often leading to systems being boycotted by disgruntled users.
The result is that whilst financial benefits are being delivered, these organisations are now discovering huge productivity problems. From the remote workers forced to re-authenticate up to seven times every day because the connection back to the central system keeps failing, to NHS staff filling in an electronic form only to lose all the data when the wireless link fails, many of the recent mobile deployments are causing major concerns.
The issue is not only lost productivity but also damaged morale. Individuals that continually struggle to complete day-to-day tasks due to technology failure become rapidly disgruntled, which further undermines their commitment and productivity.
Procurement Model
Given the huge financial challenges facing the public sector, rapid decision making is to be applauded. And in many ways, it is understandable that organisations embraced these strategies with little insight into the associated risks, especially given the widespread perception that internet access is ubiquitous. But the promise of ubiquitous access is simply not true.
Many of the rural areas that have to be covered by public sector employees have poor mobile communications. In addition, standard wireless and cellular networks are inherently insecure, and platforms like the Windows Mobile operating system have proven vulnerabilities.
The way in which these strategies have been implemented also reflects the clear shift in IT procurement process that has occurred in recent years. Over the past decade, IT has lost ground, firstly in the drive towards best value and latterly as cost cutting has become a priority: the emphasis has been on like-for-like replacement with price being the primary deciding factor.
But the public sector is moving into a new way of working and IT’s knowledge is now critical. For example, these organisations cannot afford to jeopardise CoCo compliance due to insecure mobile connections and a lack of encryption, when CoCo is a prerequisite of access to central government databases.
In this fast changing environment there is a clear need for strong co-operation between IT, finance and procurement. Organisations no longer require the lowest price on a like-for-like replacement of 300 PCs. The requirement now is more likely to be a mixture of PCs, thin client devices, notebooks with docking stations, and ruggedised tablets for those working in the field – a mix that drives the best returns for the business.
Increasingly IT has a powerful role to play in field testing these technologies in real-world scenarios, rapidly proving the concept and evaluating the business benefits.
IT’s expertise is required not only in determining the specific hardware requirements of each user but also to put in place the additional technology layers required to maximise productivity and security. From encrypted hard drives for portable equipment to additional communications layers to prevent the connection drop outs that demand re-authentication and cause data loss. It is only by combining a best value approach to technology procurement, with real insight into the viability of using these technologies in practice, that these organisations have a chance of realising these positive strategies for cost reduction.
Conclusion
The use of mobile technology is compelling for every public sector organisation. But blithely handing out top specification iPad2s to every executive board member (often referred to as -executive jewellery) is not only tough to justify to the electorate, but also highly unlikely to either release cash or improve productivity. At the same time, it is simply not feasible to relocate several hundred employees from office to home or mobile working without considering the associated security and productivity implications.
Organisations need to balance pragmatism with a real understanding of the requirements of a fast changing environment. The issue is not about buying the latest mobile and remote technologies to support a flexible workforce. It is about understanding the day-to-day requirements of this workforce and taking a smarter approach to procurement to ensure data remains secure, connectivity is constant and hardware appropriate to meet the challenging productivity demands now being faced across every part of the public sector.
We are emerging from the worst recession in 60 years and plans to repair battered public finances are well underway. The news agenda continues to be dominated by gloomy predictions that further public sector jobs will be lost and service users will suffer. However, Brian Redpath, Director of Public Sector at Nuance Communications asks whether this is the right focus, right now.
While plans to reduce the deficit presents a herculean struggle over the next few years, we have a proven capacity to drive productivity gains, while reducing cost and improving employee satisfaction. With a practical focus on progress, tough times can bring forward innovation and a positive change to the way we work.
Just as Cabinet Minister Francis Maude said he would leave no stone unturned, we have an obligation to our public services to exploit all options, which include using the latest technology to fundamentally change the way citizens interact with government bodies. It’s not enough to bring the public sector up to par with the private enterprise. The public sector needs to lead in areas of modernisation, efficiency and excellence.
To a significant extent this will require government departments and agencies to enable their customers to self-serve, through the channel they prefer to use at the time most convenient for them. To do so, government must harness existing experience and technology to automate and improve everyday processes
In UK and around the world today, self-service on the telephony channel using speech and voice technology is widely deployed. For example, using speech recognition, conversion of text to speech and optionally the use of voice prints to identify an individual remotely and with confidence.
These capabilities have been combined and deployed at scale, significantly reducing the cost to serve, improving the customer’s experience and enabling much greater insight in to the business of service delivery, through real time capture of management information on the telephony channel
Centrelink, Australian’s Federal Government service delivery agency, offers 140 different products and services on behalf of 20 government agencies. It has over 6 million customers, processes 3.2 million new claims and over 300 million payments per annum. It can manage these calls and more through its speech enabled Interactive Voice Response (IVR) platform. Customers dial in via one of seven phone numbers, with calls ranging from compulsory income reporting, to queries about childcare benefit. They can be quickly authenticated and served, or given the opportunity to serve themselves. By investing in technology to deliver an efficient public service, Centrelink set a benchmark in best practice for other public sector organisations around the world to emulate.
There are plenty of opportunities for public services in the UK to benefit in a similar fashion, while cutting overheads. According to a Nuance commissioned report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (cebr), the public sector could save approximately £13 billion per year by appropriately automating more customer service calls.
The report also analyses third party sources and finds that staff absences are disproportionately higher in public sector call centres compared to the private sector, as well as below average in terms of the amount of time spent handling calls or doing follow-up work in relation to industry best practice.
Furthermore, as reported via the Cabinet Office web site in January this year, the annual fraud exposure to the Public Sector in UK is running at £21 billion pa. Some of this will be complex cases, but a proportion of this will be ad hoc manipulation of the system, with fraudsters taking advantage of the goodwill of agents in the contact centres. In Australia, there has been some research conducted suggesting that in around 40-50% of cases, an individual with a plausible story can socially engineer their way in to another person’s bank account. Self service on the telephony channel, delivered in a convenient, easy to use natural language method, is not susceptible to such trickery.
In summary, this is a watershed opportunity to fundamentally alter the very make-up of the public sector, for the better. Yes, difficult challenges lay ahead but those government departments and councils willing to grab the innovation initiative will set the agenda for the years ahead.
Jim Lythgow, director of strategic alliances at Specsavers Corporate Eyecare, explains the Display Screen Equipment regulations and their implications for public sector organisations:
The 1992 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, amended in 2002, are in place to protect all workers who regularly use computer screens. Despite the seemingly straightforward nature of these regulations, there are numerous intricate details regarding funding, qualification and provision.
Specsavers Corporate Eyecare has undertaken research into the eyecare policies implemented by organisations across the public sector. The research represents policies and regulatory interpretations affecting up to 130,000 employees but not one respondent was fully complying with these complex regulations.
Funding failures
At the most basic level, the rules state that all employees who use visual display units (VDUs) must be provided with an eye-test, when requested, and glasses, if required. In a staggering failure to comply with the health and safety regulations, not one of the organisations responding to the research stated that they wholly fund VDU eyecare for the relevant staff.
How to administer the regulations in practise
To help cut the confusion, the legislation can be roughly broken down into the areas below and solutions are available to help organisations meet the requirements easily and cost effectively.
Qualification
VDUs are no longer limited to traditional PCs on office desks. Hand-held devices and display screens are now used in virtually every occupational role.
The regulations are clear that glasses need only be provided specifically for reading a display screen and only if this would not be possible with the users’ uncorrected vision or glasses already required for general day-to-day use. Employees cannot claim for glasses that are used for any other work-related activity and employers are under no obligation to provide contact lenses, bifocals or varifocals, which are often not considered suitable for VDU use anyway.
The regulations apply to ‘habitual users’ of Display Screen Equipment. With different definitions of a ‘regular’ or ‘habitual’ user, it is probably simpler and safer to assume that all employees who use VDUs are covered by the regulations. In fact, it can take a great deal more time and, therefore, money trying to exclude one person from the cover than to include everyone in a blanket, low-cost scheme.
Despite the exaggerated fears of many employers this is actually a very small proportion of users, usually less then 10%. Depending on the workplace demographics this can often be a lot lower.
Frequency
It is commonly thought that eye exams must be carried out annually. The regulations actually leave it to the optometrist to decide how often they should take place. For new staff, the eye test must be done before screen work starts.
Staff are entitled to claim eye tests at any time if they feel their eyes have been damaged or strained, or if they have suffered headaches, as a consequence of VDU work. There is, however, provision in the regulations for frivolous requests to be denied.
Choice
The regulations give employers the right to nominate a specific optician to carry out the eyecare. However, 62% of public sector organisations leave the choice of optometrist up to the individual member of staff and 72% either allow staff to claim back any eyecare on expenses or have no formal system in place at all (compared to 53% in the private sector). This could prove very expensive as costs for optometrists can vary hugely. This lack of defined policy can also lead to a loss of control over quality and consistency of service and care.
If the employer appoints the optician and enrols all staff with the same eyecare provider – just as they would all sign up to the same medical insurance scheme – the organisation will get the most economical deal.
Cost
The Specsavers Corporate Eyecare proposition is based on vouchers, and can provide an eye examination and glasses for £17 per person. With other opticians also offering similar corporate schemes, there is no need to pay more.
Despite this, 14% of public sector employers expect to pay in excess of £100 to provide staff with an eye test and glasses, 47% think it will cost more than £50 and 76%, more than £20. Only 24% correctly believe that corporate eyecare provision is actually possible for less than £20 per person, which is perhaps an indication of just how many public sector employers are paying over the odds.
The survey revealed that over two thirds (67%) of public sector employers only review their eyecare provider every five years or less. Organisations could well be missing out on cost-effective deals or on technological advances: digital retinal cameras are now available at leading optometrists and can make eyecare benefits a much bigger part of overall healthcare by enabling the detection of life-threatening illnesses and medical conditions.
Policy
A third (33%) of public sector organisations have over 10,000 employees. This compares to just 16% of private sector organisations with this level of staffing. Having a formal eyecare policy in place would, therefore, seem essential. Voucher schemes for eyecare are not only cost-effective but are administratively simple. The manager just purchases vouchers directly and hands them out to staff as required or requested.
With public sector spending under increasing scrutiny, VDU vouchers offer an appropriate solution. Each VDU voucher gives every employee exactly the same care – a full eye examination on request and spectacles if required for VDU use. The employer is covering the regulatory requirements and ensuring the safety of the eyesight of their staff but costs are kept to an absolute and transparent minimum.
Bigger picture
While the DSE regulations may seem fairly trivial in a wider context, the fact that they apply to such an incredible number of employees within the public sector produces a surprisingly high impact. The cost of spending a few pounds more than necessary on such care will be multiplied to hugely significant sums. The small amount of time taken to fully understand the regulations may be worth a massive saving to the public sector in return. Equally, finding an administratively-friendly option for this sometimes unnecessarily complex issue, can result in big time-savings and considerable peace of mind.
Most editors recognise the need to give readers the right of reply if they have been criticised in a publication or a broadcast. But you may be sold short in terms of space, prominence and wording.
The Press Complaints Commission’s code of practice says:
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
However, there are also EU guidelines that go further and are more specific.
They say rights of reply:
Apply to online and offline media, newspapers, magazines and other print media, radio, television and the internet. This can be helpful for websites that are not covered by the PCC Code or Ofcom.
Should be published rapidly.
Should correct information that is incorrect, or that affects someone’s personal rights, but especially their Reputation and good name, when they have been affected by an assertion of fact. Note: this doesn’t apply statements of opinion.
Should not exceed the length of the original article.
Should only correct facts.
Should be provided in the same language as the original article.
Should be given the same prominence as the original article, both in the publication as well as in any electronic archive.
It’s worth bearing these points in mind when asking for a right of reply, you may find you have more power than you realise.
If the editor of a newspaper or printed magazine (or their websites) does not agree to the wording, position or prominence of a right of reply, then you can complain to the PCC. They will usually be able to negotiate an agreed package for you.
Cleland Thom delivers media law training and consultancy to a number of corporations and public authorities, including GPSJ, United Utilities, World Trade Group, Herts County Council, London Borough of Brent and Three Rivers District Council. See: workshops.ctjt.biz/workshop/media_law_consultancy.html
Recent Comments