Best value review of managing people

Report: 17
Date: 25 July 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises work done to identify the scope of a best value review of managing people. Members are asked to consider and agree the scope of the review and to nominate a lead member to sit on the project board for the review.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members consider the options at paragraph eight and agree the scope of a best value review of managing people; and
2. that a Member is nominated to sit on the project board for the review.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The MPA has a duty to undertake best value reviews as part of its overarching responsibility to secure continuous improvement. Best value reviews need to be overseen by members and seek to improve performance by reviewing a service or work area by:

• challenging why, how and by whom a service is provided;
• comparing performance across relevant indicators, taking into account the views of service users and potential suppliers;
• consulting local taxpayers, service users, partners and the wider business community in the setting of new performance targets;
• using fair and open competition wherever practicable as a means of securing efficient and effective services.

2. On 18 April 2002 Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee decided there should be a best value review of managing people in 2002/03. This decision followed a reassessment of the MPA's programme of reviews following a relaxation of the statutory best value regime. The decision also reflected the priority members gave to undertaking a best value review in this area.

3. A report was subsequently submitted to the MPA/MPS best value programme board on 23 May 2002 which recommended that a review should be deferred for two years. The programme board did not approve the recommendation and requested a report setting out the scope of the review to be submitted to the first meeting of the Planning, Performance and Review Committee on 22 July 2002.

4. A draft report was prepared but, with joint MPA/MPS agreement, it was not submitted to PPR Committee. It was recognised that more work was needed to consider proposals being developed by Accenture consultants as part of the series of efficiency and effectiveness reviews. Further, under the new MPA committee structure, it was recognised that a decision on the scope of a review of managing people ought to be made by Human Resources Committee rather than Planning, Performance and Review Committee.

Possible scope of the best value review

5. A best value review of managing people could not hope to cover all aspects of the service. In line with other best value reviews there is a need to conduct a 'broad and shallow' assessment before conducting a 'narrow and deep' review of key areas. Areas related to human resource management that could be subject to best value review are listed at Appendix 1.

6. Whilst it is has been relatively easy to identify a long list of possible areas to review it has proved much more difficult to recommend the detailed scope of the review. This difficulty has, in part, arisen by a desire to avoid reviewing an area that is subject to an ongoing review or an area that has just been reviewed. However, such is the scale of audit, inspection and review activity within human resource management there are few areas that are 'untouched' (albeit not by reviews driven by statutory responsibilities).

7. Therefore, on the basis there is to be a best value review of managing people, there is a need to take a different approach and identify an area that the MPA and MPS jointly agree merits the application of, and can benefit from, a best value review.

8. Previous discussion at the best value programme board plus consideration of baseline material collated by the MPS suggests that members may be interested in securing improvements in one of four critical areas:

1. recruitment;
2. retention;
3. human resource strategy (numbers and type of staff per role, rank or grade);
4. staff health, safety and welfare.

9. Members are invited to consider which, if any, of these areas should be subject to a best value review. It is considered that a key factor will be the need to use the review process to bring about a clear and measurable improvement in MPS performance. Members will also wish to consider the views of MPS senior managers on the merits or otherwise of selecting a particular area to review.

10. It is recognised that each of the four areas listed above is subject to ongoing development work or changes following review. Therefore, the selection of an area to review will need to be followed by a short realignment exercise to:

• clarify the work done in that area to date;
• compare the work done and products delivered to the process and products required from a best value review;
• identify additional work needed to meet best value review principles;
• identify any implications for related activity (e.g. postpone a planned inspection, subsume a related review, terminate other projects);
• confirm the management and staffing arrangements required to complete the review.

11. Obviously, the amount and type of work needed to realign an existing review or project will depend on the degree of overlap with best value review principles. Less time and effort will be needed to realign work that clearly meets best value review criteria.

12. Members will be aware that MPA oversight is achieved via a member sitting on the MPS project board for the review and on any independent challenge panel. The chair of HR Committee has volunteered for the latter role and members are invited to nominate a lead to sit on the project board.

Efficiency and effectiveness review of Human Resources

13. Accenture consultants have been employed to undertake a review related to human resources as part of the efficiency and effectiveness review programme jointly overseen by the GLA, MPA and MPS. This work is at the planning stage but is subject to tight deadlines (i.e. completion by 30 October 2002).

14. The scope proposed for the review focuses on 'assessing the risks and benefits for the MPS in considering options for buying in service provision either based on a managed service model or via a strategic partnership…in one of four potential areas:'

1. officer recruitment;
2. aspects of training administration and provision;
3. occupational health;
4. human resources administration devolved to OCUs.

15. Accenture recommends that two to three of the areas listed above are selected for more detailed analysis.

16. There is a recognised need to align the scope of Accenture's work with the scope of any best value review to avoid duplication and to maximise benefits from sharing information / co-working. Consequently, the project board (which meets on 18 July 2002) will be asked to delay final confirmation of the scope of Accenture's work until HR Committee considers and agrees the scope of the best value review at this meeting. The view of the project board will be reported verbally at the meeting on 25 July.

17. The greatest degree of overlap will arise if the efficiency and effectiveness project board and HR Committee both wish to undertake a review related to recruitment. If this is the case then more work will be needed to clarify in detail the scope of both sets of work and the logistics of co-working to minimise duplication and disruption to staff. In any event, any significant change in the role of Accenture will need to be agreed by key partners and must fall within the scope of the contract.

C. Financial implications

The MPS has made financial provision for a best value review but the cost cannot be quantified at this stage since it is subject to a decision on the desired scope. The estimated cost will be reported to HR Committee in due course and monitored over the life of the project.

D. Background papers

Changes to the best value regime (Report 7, FPBV Committee 18 April 2002)

E. Contact details

Report author: Derrick Norton, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Processes related to Human Resources management

From MPS Proactive Baseline Assessment (March 2002) following work by MetHR Process Design Team

• Absence
• Career Development
• Discipline
• Internal Selection & Regrading
• Maintain (incl. Retention)
• Negative Performance Management
• Referral
• Termination
• Training
• Transfers
• Workforce Planning
• Training Administration
• Recruitment – Police
• Recruitment – Civil Staff
• Promotion – Police
• Promotion – Civil Staff

'Employee Lifecycle': from Accenture proposal to Efficiency and Effectiveness Project Board (July 2002)

• Recruit
• Deploy
• Develop and train
• Performance management
• Reward
• Exit management

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback