Jon Hyde, Robot in disguise

Tag: LGR

  • Publica 10 years on and the lessons for LGR: Part 2, Programme set up and business case development

    Publica 10 years on and the lessons for LGR: Part 2, Programme set up and business case development

    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].

  • Publica 10 years on and the lessons for LGR: Part 1

    Publica 10 years on and the lessons for LGR: Part 1

    Back in 2015, after 11 years of beavering away at Cheltenham Borough Council, people started talking about an ambitious new idea to bring four councils together under a new ‘delivery vehicle’ (not a milk float) which would deliver efficiency savings and improvements for the customer. The new organisation would have a more commercial focus, while also retaining a public sector ethos.

    The first I knew of it was when colleagues from Cotswold District Council started making regular visits, talking about the development of the business case. I was immediately on board and energised by engaging with partners from outside the organisation.

    I completely bought into the vision. I could see that sharing services could deliver cost savings and drive up standards if the right people were selected to drive and embed the change.

    Why have four service managers when you can have one – and that one is the best of the bunch?

    The business case

    • Why have four service managers when you can have one – and that one is the best of the bunch?
    • Why have four separate IT systems with four sets of license and maintenance costs?
    • Why limit yourself to a small isolated number of specialists when you can have a larger group that provides more opportunities for personal growth and greater business resilience?

    Some stakeholders were concerned about a loss of control if services and staff were shared

    Of course, for all of the potential benefits there were also risks and doubts. Some stakeholders:

    • Were concerned about a lack of sovereignty – that they would lose control of services if they were shared. Rather than having full control, they would have to negotiate with other partners on more strategic decisions.
    • Were concerned that they would no longer receive the same quality of service, and that local knowledge would be lost.
    • Were worried about losing individuals that they’d had long and productive working relationships with.
    • Were worried about losing their own jobs.
    • Were concerned about the cultural challenges associated with bringing four organisations together

    Some stakeholders were worried about losing their own jobs

    My enthusiasm wasn’t universal and some even viewed it as a hostile takeover. Some colleagues were sniffy about partnership colleagues. I remember one senior manager dismissing another as being ‘like a used car salesman’. This was the canary in the mine for another key challenge – culture differences.

    Despite all four authorities doing the same work for residents and businesses that were demographically broadly similar, the organisations were culturally quite different. While on some levels a truly collaborative spirit existed, on others there was a much more competitive tension. One organisation was characterised as having a more friendly ‘family’ working culture in contrast to others that were perceived as more corporate and hard nosed. There were also political differences with two of the councils having conservative administrations, one Lib Dem and one a ‘rainbow alliance’.

    In 2015, I was appointed to the core programme team as the implementation programme manager. I joined two other programme managers and we reported to the programme director who himself reported to the shadow MD. Shortly after, the wider transformation team was appointed which included staff from all partner councils, plus some brought in externally. It was important to include staff from all partners as part of gaining buy in.

    Our core team all had the same passion and vision and it was exciting work. We had a blank sheet of paper and a none too shabby budget to make this thing happen.

    To be continued.