May 2008 sees Browne Jacobson publish its authoritative report
on public sector efforts to deliver the benefits of shared
services. The report Shared Services Survey 08 took
particular care to focus on the social care, education and health
sectors.
Independent research was undertaken among 178 senior public
sector managers drawn from the UK’s health, local authorities,
social care and education and fire service sectors. Of those
surveyed 63% were senior managers and 37% were middle managers.
Most of the key findings were very positive with an overwhelming
majority of organisations confirming that they are taking part in
shared services, and 88% of respondents supporting the agenda.
Interestingly, and heartening, those working in social care and
education were even more positive about the shared services agenda
than their counterparts in health and fire services.
Defining shared services
When asked to think about what 'shared services' meant to them
we elicited an array of definitions. These included:
- “It is where a number of organisations agree to form a
consortium to provide common services, normally back office
functions”
- “It is where local authority departments are working together
for their mutual benefit to provide a service which will reduce
costs to a tax payer”
- “The pooling of resources, be that money, people, assets or any
other kind of resources, in terms of delivery of service to a
common group of customers”
Overall, it is clear that 'shared services' means different
things to different people. Only one in four respondents to our
survey referred to costs savings and end benefits when asked to
define what shared services meant to them. Within our survey 83% of
local authority managers recognised the potential for efficiency
savings in procurement. However, social care and education managers
were less enthusiastic, with just 46% considering shared
procurement services. In fact, half of the managers interviewed
from social care and education see options to collaborate to
deliver “citizen focused services”.
Why is this?
This is difficult to pinpoint, and the perceptions of why this
may be will vary from authority to authority. This cultural
difference probably arises from our understanding of the way in
which local authorities often take the lead and responsibility for
working with its partners, particularly in the delivery of social
care.
As far as children are concerned, the culture of work in
collaboration with partner organisations such as hospitals and
schools, police and voluntary groups and the Probation Service is
something with which Social Services Departments are familiar and
aware. Often, the arrangements for delivery of these services are
informal, and not governed by any particular contractual
arrangements, but instead by enabling legislation and
regulations.
Similar provisions apply to those social workers and other
professionals working with vulnerable adults and the elderly.
Coincidentally, a study has recently been published by the
University of Sheffield. It was a three year study that was
part of the Department of Health’s funded research programme on the
modernisation of adult social care, entitled Partnership and
Regulation in Adult Protection: the effectiveness of multi-agency
working and the regulatory framework in Adult Protection (“ The
Sheffield Study”)
The final report was published in December 2007, and available
at www.prap.group.shef.ac.uk. In
the executive summary to that report it was identified that adult
protection is a difficult area to investigate.
The study examined the nature of inter-agency work in this
field, its prevalence, and like Browne Jacobson’s survey, looked at
both the advantages and potential barriers to a “partnership
approach”. It draws many similar findings to those in Browne
Jacobson’s more recent survey.
Key challenges
Many senior and middle managers in health and social care see
their organisations as having gone as far as they can in taking
part in shared services initiatives. In social care, 41% of
respondents were not planning to take part in any further shared
services initiatives and in health this rose to 45% of
respondents.
The Sheffield report highlighted that multi-agency working was
viewed as time consuming, hard to coordinate and a difficult means
by which to reach consensus decisions. It was also pointed out that
there is a significant variance in the degree of involvement each
agency had in adult protection. That is always going to be a
challenge when organisations work together in informal
collaborations. According to Browne Jacobson’s survey, 80% of
social care public sector managers have delivered services in
informal collaborations and 49% of them were fearful of the dangers
of poorly drafted contracts.
Barriers and risks
Browne Jacobson’s survey showed that across the board, managers
concerns were about adequate financial resources, with lack of
manpower a close second.
Public Authorities generally reported there was some opposition
to the shared services agenda, with 32% of respondents feeling
their workforce opposed it. In social care and education this
figure dropped significantly. Only 12% felt their workforce opposed
shared services. This is probably because this sector has led on
and seen effective delivery of services in a multi-agency context
for many years now. Nevertheless, a robust communication and
consultation strategy will clearly be key to effective
implementation of this agenda. At least one survey has shown bad
management, low morale and poor training can cost organisations an
average of 117 lost working days per year.
Procurement risks are seen as especially high for managers in
this sector. Around 7 out of 10 managers see procurement as a
significant concern, compared to only 47% of health managers. 49%
of social care and education managers considered apportioning
responsibilities to each partner when designing contracts to be a
significant risk. There were also significant concerns that shared
services schemes may not be viable if one partner withdraws, or in
the event of a serious disagreement. Formalising agreements where
possible, and clarifying responsibilities, as well as the steps to
be taking in the event of a disagreement, will reduce the
risks.
Taking on responsibilities for other organisations’ services is
a concern raised by over half the managers in the social care and
education sector. This is why a clear and cost effective strategy
needs to be in place, so that it can be easily implemented in the
event of the need for withdrawal. This should minimise the impact
on delivery of the service.
Overcoming the obstacles
Much can be done to overcome these issues. Here are some
tips:
In Procurement
- Ensure compliance with EU Procurement Directives, domestic
legislation and Contract Procedure Rules.
- Agree exactly what you want to procure with your procuring
partner authorities before you do anything. Our experience is that
sometimes procurements are started with only a vague agreement of
what the partners want - half way down the line they realise they
want different things.
- Agree and record in writing who is going to carry out the
procurement. Set what each party is going to do and with what
resources.
- Incorporate useable performance monitoring and payment
arrangements, and make sure they are properly adhered to at your
end. Probity and accountability. Ensure the whole process is
documented and recorded, and that all key documents are signed,
dated and retained.
- Behave reasonably, fairly and even-handedly throughout the
process, to avoid being challenged by judicial review.
Take time to bring the workforce with you.
- Don’t short cut the planning. Identify your objectives at the
outset and implement a realistic timetable ensuring compliance with
all regulatory and other legal requirements.
- Develop a joint communications strategy to be agreed by all
participating authorities and consult widely across all levels -
make it clear that redundancies are a last resort.
- Ensure that sufficient training is available for incoming staff
and those who may require new skills.
- If relocating employees, determine what temporary accommodation
might be needed and whether there needs to be a lead-in time for
‘fit-out’ works.
Perfect partnerships
- Identify partners your organisation can work with, and that you
share a common vision and ethos with. Formalise arrangements where
possible. Agree each partner’s targets in terms of people, process
and client measures.
- Shared agreement should make it clear how costs, risks and
rewards are to be shared amongst the partners. Make sure a flexible
and practical exit strategy is in place. It should be flexible
enough to allow partners to join or re-join at a later date.
- Contract documentation should specify who will make key
decisions and the mechanisms in place in case of disagreement.
- Aim for equality. Unsuccessful partnerships suffer from power
struggles between personalities. Ensure that governance is correct
and devolves power to an appropriate board or committee.
Return to Headlines