|
|
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.”
Get it right!
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
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.”
Northumberland County Council (NCC) prides itself on the range and breadth of services it delivers to the 300,000 people throughout England’s most northerly shire, which covers a vast area from the Tyne and Wear conurbation to the Scottish Borders.
Before 2008, Northumberland relied largely on leased lines for their internet connectivity and as they operate from hundreds of sites throughout the county, this proved to be a very expensive solution.
Challenge:
The council identified that by switching from leased lines to a more cost effective wireless delivery they could also take advantage of a variety of other benefits that could be utilised across the local authority.
By investing in a wireless mesh network platform, the council could begin offering shared services for its multiple offices and introduce home worker capabilities to its staff. The council also wanted to offer region-wide Wi-Fi connectivity which could be utilised by the local business community.
Strategy:
KBR is the leading wireless network solutions company that was commissioned by NCC to install and deploy full wireless mesh delivery to provide high speed connectivity and Wi-Fi at street level, across the county, for use by local authority staff and local businesses.
Working with KBR, NCC began developing the Northumberland Open Network to bring secure and resilient wireless connectivity to the region with the aim of delivering a managed costs effective network with provision for multiple stakeholder groups.
KBR has installed several hundred SkyPilot mesh nodes to cover 2000 km2 of the County of Northumberland.
Starting in the key towns of Alnwick and Berwick, KBR worked to integrate a wide range of council premises including; registrars, schools, libraries, colleges, local businesses, social services, highways depots and fire stations.
Results:
The council has been able to save hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum compared with the previous cost of leased lines.
A second major benefit of using a wireless mesh is that hubs can be rapidly decommissioned and redeployed. When new buildings are acquired or existing buildings vacated, hardware can be installed or removed quickly without expensive disconnection or reconnection fees. These savings are compounded by the indirect savings realised through IT centralisation and simplified network management.
Robin Price, Managing Director, KBR said: -This technology has never been deployed on this scale anywhere in the UK. We are delivering cost efficiencies, resilience and the opportunity for mobile and home working options for council employees.”
Winning the UK CEED National eWell–Being Awards 2010 ‘Better ways of Working’, KBR’s deployment for Northumberland has made the region a frontrunner for wireless mesh technology.
As a result, the council is also currently leading the way in delivering the next generation of broadband infrastructure which has placed the county at the forefront of e-commerce across the UK.
SkyPilot wireless mesh solutions have currently been deployed by KBR in Allendale, Alnwick, Amble, Ashington, Bedlington, Berwick, Blyth, Choppington, Cramlington, Haltwhistle, Haydon Bridge, Hexham, Morpeth, Newbiggin, Ponteland, Prudhoe, Seahouses and Seaton Delaval.
For more information call: KBR on: +44 (0) 191 492 1492 / Web: www.kbr.co.uk
I’m heartened by today’s announcement of a new initiative to tackle the vast sums of money lost to fraud in the UK. However the DWP estimates that error accounts for double the losses caused by fraud. With every penny lost to fraud and error being lost to front line services, one thing is clear: battling this widespread waste has to be a top priority.
The vast figures involved are less surprising when you consider that 25% of civil service respondents to a recent survey said that ‘promptness’ rather than ‘accuracy’ was the most important factor when allocating public funds. Insightful understanding of an individual is only possible if their records are cross-checked and integrated, ensuring inconsistent claims are stopped before they pollute the wider government network.
Graham Kemp, head of public sector, SAS UK
Evance Wind Turbines, a world leading manufacturer of small wind turbines, has partnered with SolarVentus, investors in renewable energy, to offer free electricity to landowners in England, Scotland and Wales.
Under this finance package, an R9000 wind turbine is installed free of charge in exchange for a 25 year lease. In return the landowner can use as much of the generated electricity as required, free of charge, and SolarVentus receive the income generated from the Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs).
To benefit from this free electricity the proposed location for a turbine needs to be suitable, that is, open and with an average wind speed of greater than six metres per second. Once a site is accepted the process is hassle free for the landowner as a site survey, planning applications and installation are all managed by SolarVentus. Also as SolarVentus retain ownership of the equipment they cover the costs of maintenance and insurance.
The Evance R9000 is one of the most efficient small wind turbines on the market generating 13,186kWh of power a year when the annual mean wind speed is six metre per second.
Kevin Parslow, CEO of Evance Wind Turbines, said: -The Feed-in Tariffs represent an attractive investment opportunity for landowners. However, not everyone is able to fund the upfront costs, around £25,000, so this finance package enables landowners with suitable sites to reduce their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions.
Landowners who are interested in this offer are encouraged to check the wind speed of their proposed site to ensure potential suitability or contact Evance for advice.
Lease finance package available for businesses and government organisations
Evance has also partnered with a finance company which specifically funds environmental capital purchases, to provide a lease finance package designed to help businesses, schools and local government purchase an R9000 wind turbine.
In the right location a small wind turbine will lead to substantial savings and generate an income through Feed-in Tariffs – a positive investment in renewable technology for a reduced carbon footprint.
This finance option has been designed to enable businesses, schools and government organisations to purchase the Evance 5kW turbine over a 5 year period without the upfront investment. All income generated from the Feed-in Tariffs will be available to the user of the turbine – stated Parslow.
For more details on these finance packages please contact Evance:
www.evancewind.com or 01509 215669
UNISON, the UK’s largest union, today welcomed Professor Eileen Munro’s review of social work, and its focus on tackling bureaucracy to help social workers to get out from behind their desks and into their communities.
But the union warned that the avalanche of cuts hitting councils – including to early help services and admin support in social work departments – will set back the cause of giving social workers more time to focus on children and families.
Helga Pile, UNISON national officer for social work, said:
-Tackling bureaucracy is key to boosting social work. But the avalanche of cuts hitting councils means that children’s services are haemorrhaging staff. Many are making cuts of up to 25% to the admin workers who provide vital support to social workers.
-Reports are already emerging of social workers spending hours filing, data inputting, organising meetings and booking taxis for contact visits – all because their admin support has been taken away. This is a crazy situation.
-Professor Munro rightly stresses the importance of early help services – but sadly this comes too late for the hundreds of children’s centres and early help projects that are already closing this year, and for those facing the chop when the second year of cuts hits councils.”
UNISON reiterated its call for the government to put its weight behind the union’s social work contract. This ten-point plan sets out the minimum conditions needed for social workers to practise safely and effectively.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) take possession of their new Force Headquarters in Central Park.
Police leaders and partners gathered to witness the building developers Ask:Goodman present a ceremonial key to Cllr Paul Murphy of Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) and Chief Constable Peter Fahy of GMP to signify completion of the construction.
GMPA Chairman Cllr Paul Murphy said: “This new HQ building will be the most modern, fit-for-purpose police building in the UK and that is something GMPA is extremely proud of. A project of this scale and size takes an incredible amount of hard work and commitment from everyone involved and I’m delighted we’ve made excellent progress throughout.
We are at the start of an exciting new era of policing and it is extremely reassuring to know that the police officers and staff who work to keep Greater Manchester communities safe have the 21st Century tools they need to do a good job.”
Ken Knott, Director of Ask:Goodman, said; -The handover of the Force HQ building is a momentous day for Ask:Goodman and Central Park. A building of this scale and distinction always creates a huge impact and we are looking forward to seeing it in use. With a dedicated tram stop for Central Park and over 1,000 people working at Force HQ, the Park’s vibrant business community will receive a considerable boost.”
Now the main building work is complete, the next exciting phase is the post contract fit out of the six storey building which will see the installation of IT, furniture and audio visual equipment prior to staff moving in later in the year.
GMP Chief Constable Peter Fahy said: “This building was clearly approved before the spending cuts but actually will prove to be an excellent investment for the future. Over the long term it will enable us to reduce our accommodation costs and allow staff to work in new and innovative ways. The purpose of headquarters is to support those who provide the frontline service to the public. This wonderful building will help us to keep headquarter costs to the minimum but is also a vote of confidence in the future of GMP and we are very grateful to the Police Authority and of course to the tax payers of Greater Manchester for providing a state of the art facility.”
The new development replaces the Force’s current headquarters, Chester House, in Old Trafford, which is beyond economic repair. The flexible design of the new building and the modern network that has been installed should go a long way towards future-proofing the headquarters and will help ensure GMP is able to meet the challenges of policing the Greater Manchester area for years to come.
Press releases about court stories
Many public authorities, charities and businesses issue press releases, or post stories online, about court cases they have won.
These can be legally dangerous. Here are some safeguards:
1. You should aim to cover the case yourself, rather than pick up information from colleagues etc.
2. Court reports are covered by absolute privilege, which is an IMMUNITY to a libel action, provided:
i. Your report must be fair – give both sides, especially if key allegations are denied.
ii. It should be published straight away.
3. It must be accurate – check name spellings, ages, addresses (don’t give house numbers), job titles, the charge and the plea. If a court case is wrong and appears on your website, or has been published as a press release, you may lose privilege.
4. It may be libellous if you add other material – eg quotes – to the court report. Additional material is not usually privileged.
5. If you don’t cover the case yourself, stick to the bare facts.
Dangers
There may be strict restrictions on reporting court cases. Court cases should always be covered by someone who is experienced in this field. Mistakes can be costly – they may even be criminal offences.
Three safety-first rules are:
1. Do NOT name under-18s, or use their ages, addresses, schools, colleges, workplaces, or any details that could lead to their ID.
2. CHECK ages of defendants, witnesses etc – they may be under 18. If they are, see 1 above.
3. Do NOT name anyone who claims they have been a victim of ANY sexually-related offence, or use their ages, addresses, schools, colleges, workplaces, or any details that could lead to their ID.
4. CHECK if a defendant faces another trial / case. Reporting ONE trial could prejudice the NEXT one.
Court stories published by public authorities and councils
Court stories published by public authorities, councils and some charities are seen as PRESS RELEASES – and, from the media’s point of view, are covered by qualified privilege.
This means they are protected from libel actions arising from publishing your release – even if it is wrong. You may have included wrong facts or inaccurate quotes.
The media are NOT in any danger here. But they may have to publish a correction / clarification.
Cleland Thom delivers media law training and consultancy to a number of corporation and public authorities, including GPSJ, United Utilities, World Trade Group, Herts County Council, London Borough of Brent and Three Rivers District Council.
workshops.ctjt.biz/workshop/media_law_consultancy.html
Civica, a market leader in specialist systems and business process services that help organisations to achieve a more cost-efficient way of working, has announced that Civica UK Ltd, the company’s wholly owned subsidiary, has acquired PSCAL Limited (-PSCAL”).
PSCAL specialises in financial management software and related services for the National Health Service. It is the leading supplier of commissioning, contract and costing software, supplying more than 200 primary and secondary health care organisations.
The acquisition extends Civica’s presence and expertise in this market at a time when effective financial management is increasingly critical for health care providers who face rising demand for services set against increased spending constraints and significant changes in the procurement, commissioning and delivery of services.
Simon Downing, Civica chief executive, said, -I am delighted to welcome PSCAL to the Group. The company’s customer base, product set and specialist insight extend our capabilities at a time of significant structural, demographic and financial change in the health sector. The combination of Civica and PSCAL is ideally placed to help customers transform financial and service level management.”
Lizo Ngqobongwana, director at PSCAL, said, -The acquisition is an exciting step for our customers, employees and partners. From GP commissioning and payment-by-results to patient level costing and service line reporting, timely and accurate financial management has never been more important in the NHS, and I look forward to building on our respective strengths and market leadership in order to deliver increasing value to customers.”
Policy Review TV has been nominated in two categories for the 2011 Conference Awards, making the shortlist for Best Virtual or Hybrid Conference and Best Sponsorship Initiative. The Awards, hosted by Michael Portillo on 17 June in Westminster, recognise standards of excellence throughout the industry.
The company, which won a ‘Conference Triumph in the Face of Adversity’ award in the 2010 competition, allows conference delegates to attend ‘virtually’ by live streaming the conference audio and video online in high quality. ‘Virtual delegates’ can interact as it happens via the online channel and twitter – and there is a permanent on-demand catch-up service, similar to the BBC iPlayer.
The event for which the company has been nominated was a discussion forum entitled -Preventing a Funding Crisis in Higher Education, addressing the outcomes of the Comprehensive Spending Review and discussing the implications of the Browne Review. Lord Browne himself spoke at the event, along with Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willetts MP, John Denham MP and NUS President Aaron Porter.
The event was attended by 100 and yet achieved 1,980 virtual delegates online, which was made freely available to anyone who wanted to take part. In addition over 5,900 people have watched the on-demand archive video.
Edward Gamble, Managing Director of Policy Review TV, says:
I am absolutely thrilled with our nomination. This was a crucially important event that discussed a number of significant issues, made even more high-profile with the level of student dissatisfaction about student tuition fees.
This event brought out the big players, and put them in front of the opinion-forming audience they needed to engage with at a critical time and importantly it was live and available afterwards on-demand.
We met the client’s need to provide an affordable, interactive and fast service. As the ‘Best Virtual or Hybrid Conference’ award makes its debut this year, this shows the increasing use of online TV to meet modern campaign needs. This takes online TV to a higher level for mainstream management.
I’m proud that our service enables people to ‘attend’ events at a fraction of the cost of being there in person, and with reduced need to travel, there are significant environmental benefits too.
Innovative initiatives in a national public sector awards programme. Developed by e-commerce The iPhone app recently launched by Trafford Council has been nominated as one of the UK’s most experts, boxsail, the new app recorded over 1,100 downloads in its first six weeks and has been given positive reviews by local residents. Find it at www.trafford.gov.uk/itrafford or download it free direct from the Apple store.
-With funding pressures now a major concern for Councils, the need to challenge current practice and develop new ways of delivering service excellence has never been so great,” comments Deepak Sharma, MD of boxsail. -The new iPhone App offers residents a new and immediate way of accessing their local Council services, but crucially also provides Councils with a highly cost-effective means of engaging with a growing number of consumers. We hope the success of the Trafford pilot will encourage Councils across the UK to adopt the new App which can easily be adapted to fit individual requirements.”
Executive Councillor Alex Williams adds: “I am delighted that this application has been recognised at a national level and to be shortlisted is a major achievement. The application has been well received by our residents and demonstrates just one example of how we are developing innovative methods to ensure we are providing first class services to our residents in an efficient, convenient and cost effective way.”
Created to make it easier and more convenient to access services and contact Trafford Council, the free to download ‘Council Services’ app brings together key features in one easy to use format. By far the most popular is the bin calendar which uses postcodes to give the correct information. Other features are increasingly well used such as the ‘Report an Issue’, where residents can report up to 45 different issues from a missed bin collection to a broken street light, and ‘Find My Nearest’ which locates libraries, parks and other local amenities using GPS signals.
www.boxsail.co.uk/mobile-iphone-android-apps/mobile-iphone-android-video.html
There is a growing consumer consciousness that consumption based on finite resources is not viable, and for the first time the public are maybe even linking economy to resource use.
UKplc has made great strides in recycling and composting. For many people and organisations it is now time to look further up the chain and improve efficiencies there. More and more organisations are developing waste minimisation and resource efficiency strategies.
There are massive carbon and waste gains to be made by improving manufacturing and procurement efficiency. The real environmental effects of making a product sit just below the surface.
For the average consumer product, 10% of the raw materials used to make a product are found in the final product. That means the chair you are sitting on actually generated a further 90% of waste during primary and secondary manufacture. More alarmingly, the amount of waste generated for a single laptop computer is close to 4000 times its weight.
All the good stuff we throw away represents just a small proportion of the waste taken to make it.
That is why it is so important to get maximum value out of surplus resources by redistributing the resource to someone who can use it.
Redistribution is the 5th R. Reduce Reuse Recycle Repair and Redistribute
To deal with business to business resource redistribution Daniel O’Connor, an ex Local Authority waste and sustainability officer, at Scarborough BC and Durham CC respectively, has developed www.WARP-it.co.uk.
WARPit is a bespoke online resource redistribution network. WARPit makes it very easy for individuals in an organisation to share loan or give surplus resources to individuals inside the same organisation in the first instance. If resources are not required within the primary organisation they can be stored or passed onto local national and international partners, including large organisations, schools, charities and SMEs.
Daniel said -This tool is great to redistribute resources in one organisation- but really comes into its own when organisations start reciprocally sharing surplus resources- it means lower costs on a few counts. The tool is great for LSPs.”
WARPit brings the unused into use, saving money, freeing up space, avoiding carbon emissions and landfill.
The obvious environmental benefit of WARPit is that it keeps stuff circulating, maximising use and extending the life span of equipment. The big environmental saving is that we do not have to buy new products- saving waste carbon emissions and of course purchasing costs.
Daniel says -We are seeing savings in the order of hundreds of thousands of pounds- and payback times are measured in days- rather than years!”
He went on -But the collaboration between organisations is the really exciting part. The WARPit network enables resources to be transferred legally and safely from areas where they are not needed to somewhere where they are. That might be in the same organisation- or it could be to an organisation carrying out similar activities locally such as universities, councils, hospitals, SMEs charities or schools.”
-And because of the reciprocal sharing nature of the social network- users feel that they can declutter and give away or loan resources they would usually keep because they know they will be able to get the same resource back later when they need it. Users learn that -what goes around comes around” literally.”
-People embrace this co operative collaboration behaviour to be more efficient but also much more connected with their colleagues within the organisation and with partner organisations. This will have great potential to improve work between organisations”
So the concept of ownership is changing, instead of purchasing new equipment organisations are seeking to use what is already there or share resources. As Mark Levine said in the NewYork Times, sharing is clean, crisp, urbane, post modern. Owning stuff is dull selfish and backward” A bit extreme but it shows where we are going with the concept of ownership.
The effectiveness of the system increases as more join, as there are more resources circulating and the system serves its community better. The co- operative principle is always the same- many hands make light work, and the greater the collective benefit to the community.
-In these times of improved efficiencies organisations must look across the road at their neighbours and look to share resources both physical mental and social.” Said Daniel
The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has announced guidance for public sector technology chiefs to enhance data protection on lost or stolen smartphones. The advice focuses on configuration instructions, secure applications and training for staff members for security procedures on smartphones including iPhones, Windows Phone 7, Nokia and Blackberry devices.
Sophos’s public sector business development director, Graeme Stewart, notes that while the concept of mobility is continuing to gather momentum, the requirements and policies for smartphone working should remain the same as those for mobile working on laptops- secure, control and audit.
-Many organisations are focusing on encouraging employees to bring their own kit to work and to access corporate resources when they’re out of the office to allow staff to be more mobile, and more productive, commented Stewart. -However, there is a second issue here that is often overlooked, which is organisations buying equipment that was designed for the consumer space, but using it in a corporate setting. Quite often, this kit is not enterprise ready, as it is not shipped with the right software on board to enable control, audit and remediation in the event of a problem.
-The consumerisation of technology across all sectors is a space that is continuing to move rapidly, continued Stewart. -It’s essential that all staff treat security on their mobiles and laptops in the same way as they would on office-based equipment. If organisations are issuing consumer designed devices to help employees work more efficiently and effectively, they must ensure that data protection policies are consistent across the company, regardless of the equipment used.
For further information, please visit Graeme’s public sector blog at:
publicsectorsecurity.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/mobility-picks-up-pace-with-gchq-announcement
Graeme Stewart is available to discuss smartphone security for public sector organisations in more detail at Infosecurity Europe, Earl’s Court, London, 19th – 21st April 2011. If you would be interested in arranging a meeting with Graeme at the show, or a phone briefing, please contact Fiona Halkerston or Lindsey Challis on 020 7401 7968 or by reply.
Making websites legal
Basic information
European E-commerce Regulations require your clients to provide certain information on your website and to make it easily accessible.
There will be new rules about the way you handle cookies soon, too. Watch this space!
The site should state:
The name of your ISP.
Your email address (separately from the contact form).
Your company’s registered and postal address and registration number.
Your VAT number.
Details of any professional body that you belong to, plus information about the body’s membership.
You have to stick to these rules, even if your site does not engage in e-commerce.
Disability Discrimination Act
The Disability Discrimination Act says that businesses – including the media – must avoid treating disabled persons unfavourably. This covers newspaper, radio, TV and magazine websites, too.
Web editors need to make sure their websites comply.
1. The RNIB said in 2005: ‘A disabled person can make a claim against you if your website makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult to access information and services. If you have not made reasonable adjustments and cannot show that this failure is justified, then you may be liable under the Act, and may have to pay compensation and be ordered by a court to change your site.’
2. The DDA does not stipulate website design standards – it leaves you to make sure your site conforms.
3. Service providers have a duty to make adjustments before there’s a problem, not wait until someone complains.
4. This means you should make sure:
Anything that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use your site, or anything on it, is amended.
Any features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service on the site are amended.
5. In practice this means:
Make sure your site is built to W3C standards for good website design. That means valid html and valid css.
Pass Priority 1 W3C WCAG at least – see www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
Ask visually impaired people and deaf people to test the site.
Act quickly if someone contacts you about accessibility with your site.
Make sure the site is accessible for the deaf – provide scripts for video / audio downloads, and use simple language.
6. There are excellent practical tips at: www.userite.com/checklist.htm
7. If you’re a business, contact forms must be answered within 24 hours.
8. There are other rules if your site has message boards. We will look at these another time.
Cleland Thom delivers media law training and consultancy to a number of corporation 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
|
NEED AN UP TO DATE DATABASE? 
|
Recent Comments