The first phase of the programme was programme set up and development of the business case. The programme was named Vision 2020 with a nod to what we wanted to achieve over the next five years. The governance framework was put into place.
The steering group was ultimately accountable for the programme and had strategic decision making powers
At the top was the steering group, composed of Council leaders, cabinet transformation leads, C level staff from the partner councils, the shadow MD and the Programme Director. This group was ultimately accountable for the programme and had strategic decision making powers. This group would make recommendations to the elected members of partner councils who had the power to accept or reject proposals.
The core team focused on the development of the business case, which hinged around the selection of the type of delivery vehicle for the new organisation.
What is the problem that we’re trying to solve? The answer involved push and pull factors such as serious budget gaps, plus the opportunities that moving to a new delivery model presented.
Stakeholder workshops were held with steering group members to establish the ‘Why’ for this transformation, tackling the question: What is the problem that we’re trying to solve? The answer involved push and pull factors such as serious budget gaps, plus the opportunities that moving to a new delivery model presented.
Ultimately, this programme was about dealing with the burning platform of financial unsustainability
Ultimately, this programme was about dealing with the burning platform of financial unsustainability. With the problem statement defined, attention moved to identifying and narrowing down solutions. Various organisational models were identified. The stakeholders were led through a process of drawing up their own evaluation criteria and weightings, and scoring the options accordingly. Criteria included: financial impact; level of sovereignty; quality of local knowledge and ability to service local communities; implementation risk; management complexity; and staff impact.
Financial needs were the main driver along with preserving quality of service, and so the steering group opted a Teckal (Local Authority owned) company, which would host a suite of shared services
Financial needs were the main driver along with preserving quality of service, and so the steering group opted for the most ambitious option: the establishment of a Teckal (Local Authority owned) company, which would host a suite of shared services.
The Teckal model reduced implementation bureaucracy and cost, and provided staff and other stakeholders with more certainty
Rigorous due diligence followed including financial modelling and a review of the legal implications. The Teckal company model, despite operating as a private company limited by guarantee, offered the benefit of councils being able to be award the company contracts directly without tender, because the company is owned by its partner councils and acts as an extension of them. This means that Shared Services set up within it can be commissioned by the partner councils without having to go out to the open market. This reduced implementation bureaucracy and cost, and provided staff and other stakeholders with more certainty.
A pragmatic thin client management approach was adopted, balancing cost efficiency with proper governance, accountability, and legal compliance
The next step was to get the updated business case signed off by all four partner councils at full council meetings. During this process, extensive negotiations occurred regarding which services exactly would go into the new organisation. There were also conversations about whether the new model should have a thick or thin client management approach, and where commissioners and client managers should sit. A pragmatic thin client management approach was adopted, balancing cost efficiency with proper governance, accountability, and legal compliance.
Regarding the services to be transferred, three of the partners went for an all in approach (front and back office), while one opted to stick to back office functions. The legal work identified the fact that certain roles and functions could not be shared, and partners agreed that certain roles and functions were less well served by sharing, and so a small number of staff remained in the employ of the partner councils e.g. Statutory officers such as Section 151s and Chief Execs; some democratic and governance roles, and some roles with a strong locality focus.
Once the full business case was signed off, we moved into the next phase – implementation, which I’ll discuss next time.
If you’d like an informal conversation about the Publica journey and its implications for LGR, do drop me a line: [email protected].