Howard Clark
Recent activity
Comments (4)
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
I was initially puzzled as to how this could be characterized as tension between the auditor and the audited. Then I realised perhaps people were labouring under a misconception of what the Audit Commission does. If the Audit Commission were literally just doing as the dictionary definition of audit suggests (to make an official examination of the accounts of a business) this basic tension may exist. The Audit Commission has long since transcended that basic function, and this explains the anger expressed in many quarters. The AC now decides what criteria it judges organisations upon and what business philosophy it will impose. Then it applies that judgement everywhere. If it is wrong, it can't be seen to admit that it is wrong, because then all those years of inspection get called into doubt. Imagine it! All those organisations that might have actually been good, but the AC didn't understand. 'No you haven't met your targets', 'we don't see piles of policies and procedures', 'what do you mean you operate by a simple set of principles and purposes!' All those organisations that were average, poor and good but the AC saw them doing or not doing the things that they think good oganisations do. All those hundreds of thousands of pounds of inspection fees, supporting all those specifiers.
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
I took up Michael Hughes offer of reading through the report [BACK TO FRONT] and the background documents on back-office services. The very first stated purpose was itself interesting: 1. The aim of this study is to IMPROVE the efficiency of local authority back office functions [note, not to assess if there are any benefits, but to IMPROVE the efficiency of back office functions. It's starting point is with an established belief that back-offices deliver efficiency savings]. [Indeed the document continues that] 'Local councils are ALREADY demonstrating that efficiency gains made in back office functions can make a major contribution to the delivery of the 2.5% efficiency target' [NO EVIDENCE YET]. It continues 'The Annual Efficiency Statements SUGGEST that large cashable and non-cashable gains have been released through improvements in back office services, however it is not clear which approaches are associated with the largest efficiency gains, which are most appropriate for different types of council.' [However, these captions aren't from the actual report, these are from the RESEARCH SPECIFICATION. It suggests that the expection that back offices work, is built into the specification so of course the final report comes out on side]. [However, Michael in his comments on John writes that] 'It makes four overall recommendations to local authorities. Not one of them mentions or implies more back offices.' [No they don't, but then they don't need to...] AT THE START OF THE REPORT ... 1. Councils are expected to achieve £4.9 billion cash-releasing efficiencies by 2010/11 (page 5 Back to Front)...Failure to make efficiency savings will mean service cuts or an inability to respond to new challenges...There is no single answer – back office efficiencies are created with tried and tested methods...There are still opportunities for back office efficiency gains... [This is from the organisation that is going to come and inspect you and score your service. If you have a back office, would you tell them it hadn't worked? They would want to know why, was it your poor management?] It wouldn't be about the possibility that economy of scale is a myth?
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
I used to be one of the consultants working in the public sector, with a Lean Six Sigma qualification in my back pocket, a couple of degrees and a belief in targets and standards and policies and procedures and Key Lines of Enquiry. I worked in quite a few different authorities, including a couple that were 4*. Except they weren't 4* at all. They were pretty average really. They were very good at presentation. In fact the 4* were good normally because they were good at top-down hierarchical control, exactly the sort of thinking and structure that gets the AC ticking boxes quickly. In all of those organisations, teams were dedicated to translating Audit Commission Key Lines of Enquiry into reams of policies and procedures. Endless meetings benchmarking gamed performance statistics (with other organisations that had gamed their statistics). Kafka could have written a book about the local authority world that we have built avoiding telling the truth and feeding the machine. It is not a world I ever want to return to. John Seddon’s book, Freedom from Command and Control was my first insight into a different world, that made me want to learn more. As I learnt I came to realise the mad waste of talent and money that has been squandered over the years. I realized how little I had known. I have visited enough organisations now to know that The Audit Commission judges organisations based upon a tick-box in their head (if not on the page). If it doesn't fit the tick-box, or they can't understand it then they mark it down because it doesn't fit their view of the world. I used to believe that good managers were those who ran a tight ship and kept their people and statistics in line. Now I meet managers of a different ilk. Manager who, when confronted by conflicting messages, e.g. centrally-prescribed measures and targets that look good, but are also confronted by angry customers are curious enough to want to get at the problem and solve it. They get at the problem despite hostility from the Audit Commission and government for daring to question or challenge. They understand that they are there to serve customers and not to serve the Audit Commission’s top-down, hierarchical, tick-box, target setting view of the world.
