Bruce Levitan
Recent activity
Comments (5)
-
Comment on: We must manage value, not costs
I'm afraid I haven't a clue what Alec is on about. All I know is that John Seddon's approach does work and the evidence, time after time, is proof of that. But there's still a long way to go, I'm afraid. I recently wrote to my MP about John's approach, and here are some quotes from his reply: "I see targets as tools to help achieve an end, not an end in themselves. Of course some targets, and the way some people apply them, can have perverse effects; but no one would argue that the target of reducing hospital waiting times for operations from 18 months as standard to 18 weeks as maximum was either misguided or inappropriate - and it worked. Many of the targets set for public services in the last ten years have now been relaxed: for example, the police now only have one target, to reduce fear of crime by improving public confidence in policing." He goes on to write "I therefore find Mr Seddon's view, that there is no place for targets, to be just as misplaced as those who say that targets should be the be all and end all of public service reform (not that I have heard anyone say that!). He assumes that every participant in delivering a particular service is equally committed to a well defined common goal and strategy. Whilst laudable, this assumption is completely unrealistic." There you, go: my MP says targets are good!
-
Comment on: Head-to-head
Where do we go from here? I think, as noted in the comments from the "Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on" article, it's to get John Seddon and David Walker together to debate the issue. BBC Today programme tried - John Seddon accepted, but David Walker refused!
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
I'm interested in Mike Elliot's asertion that the Vanguard appraoch isn't systems thinking. In one sense, it doesn't really matter because it has proved itself time and gain to work, and work well. So who cares about the label? But just to try and put some perspective on this: the Vanguard approach is systems thinking albeit with some variations. Read the excellent analysis by Prof Michael Jackson, Professor of Management Systems at Hull University, in the report "A Systematic Approach to Service Improvement: Evaluating Systems Thinking in Housing" (ODPM, Sept 2005 - available from http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/systematicapproach)
-
Comment on: By all means criticise us, but get your facts straight
For me, the tragedy is that the Audit Commission could actually do something good by taking on board the systems thinking appraoch and using it as a tool for themseleves in two respects: 1. to evaluate their own "service"; 2. to help those they "audit" take on board the systems think approach. I cannot believe Mr Walker's assertion that John Seddon does not consider the customer. Has he actually read any of Seddon's books? Systems thinking's entire ethos is customer centric. And because it forces us to design and measure our service from the customer's perspectice, it works for the customer. Other comments here have given evidence of this so I don't feel I need to add any more. So my challenge to the AC is: take a long hard look at systems thinking, and see how you can use it to help the public sector. In fact why don't you employ Prof Seddon as your CEO (except that he probably would refuse the post)?
-
Comment on: Cut the Audit Commission, not public services
I wanted to add my voice in support of John Seddon's approach and the damage that audit has done to the public sector. I've worked in the NHS, an NDPB (not the Audit Commission!), local government, and now HE. In every case I have found internal "industries" devoted to serving the audit beast. These resources serve no useful purpose whatsoever from the customer's viewpoint, and they consume resource that could be delivered to the front line instead. That wouldn't be so bad if there was a useful outcome - afterall one could sort of say the same of any internal service such as HR or finance. But the latter at least have as their objective to make the organisation work better. The "performance police" have only one goal: to serve the audit machine! I have recent left LG because the new CEO who joined the council where I worked brought in a regime that is even more "command and control" than before. No doubt its star rating will improve as it gets better at playing the game. But services will suffer. Heaven help us if this way of thinking is allowed to continue. What really gets me is that anyone with a modicum of common sense could not but be persuaded by Seddon's systems thinking approach. "Freedon from Command and Control" should be required reading for all managers in the public sector!
