Best value

Report: 4
Date: 20 March 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

This paper summarises issues discussed at a meeting of the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001. The paper also asks members to consider the programme of best value reviews for 2001/02-2004/05.

A. Recommendations

1. That members note the meeting of the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001 and support a short review of the management arrangements for best value.
2. That the best value review of managing information should be scheduled provisionally for 2003/04.
3. That the nature of the review of managing information should be re-considered following implementation of the MPS 'Information Strategy 2000'.

B. Supporting information

1. This paper was commissioned following discussion at the full Authority meeting on 8 March 2001. The paper deals with two issues related to best value:

• an update on a meeting of the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001; and
• the programme of best value reviews for the next four years (2001/02 to 2004/05).

Management arrangements for best value

2. The best value sub-group met on 1 March 2001. The meeting was chaired by Reshard Auladin and the agenda is attached at Appendix 1 (in advance of a note of the meeting). The meeting was intended partly to act as a review of progress to date and most papers were presented for information only.

3. In considering its own terms of reference the sub-group noted possible overlaps with the role performed by the MPS 'best value programme board'. The Deputy Commissioner subsequently raised similar concerns at a meeting of the best value programme board on 9 March 2001.

4. Debate at the best value programme board led to a consensus that more should be done to ensure the management arrangements for best value were efficient and effective. It was agreed that management arrangements needed to reflect the Authority's responsibility for securing best value (and overseeing best value reviews) as well as the MPS's responsibility for day-to-day management.

5. It is considered that management arrangements need to be re-assessed by a short review undertaken by MPA and MPS officers (reporting in draft form to the best value sub-group meeting planned for 5 April and formally to FPBV Committee on 20 April).

Best value review of managing information

6. The Authority is obliged to review all its functions over a five-year period (starting 2000/01). Further, the Authority (as part of its policing and best value performance plan for 2001/02) must publish its proposed programme of reviews.

7. The programme of best value reviews at Appendix 2 was developed initially by the best value sub-group and approved by the FPBV Committee on 19 December 2000 subject to further work to:

• define the scope of a review related to 'managing information';
• establish the relationship between the proposed best value review of 'managing people' and the ongoing MPS strategic review of human resources.

8. The MPS subsequently progressed both issues and papers on each topic were considered by the best value sub-group on 1 March in order to make recommendations to the full Authority on 8 March 2001. At that meeting the MPA decided that:

• issues relating to a best value review of 'managing information' should be deferred for consideration by FPBV Committee;
• issues relating to a best value review of 'managing people' should be deferred for consideration by the Chair's Urgency and Co-ordinating Committee.

9. As far as 'managing information' is concerned the best value sub-group considered an MPS paper (the executive summary of which is attached at Appendix 3) plus an MPA briefing note (attached at Appendix 4). The MPS paper concluded that 'records management' ought to be the first in a series of reviews and that it should form the basis of a best value review in 2001/02.

10. In considering this proposal the sub-group concluded that, although work was needed to develop and improve 'records management' in the MPS, such improvements could be brought about by work other than a best value review.

11. Further, the sub-group concluded that the MPS information strategy should be implemented and allowed to 'bed down' before deciding which areas of business related to 'managing information' should be subject to best value review. This approach would create the possibility that another review could be started earlier than otherwise planned.

12. The sub-group agreed that these conclusions should be presented to the Authority meeting on 8 March. However, as noted earlier, the MPA thought that FPBV Committee would be better placed to consider the matter and deferred the decision accordingly. In any event, the Deputy Commissioner (as chair of the MPS best value programme board) has asked that the issues listed at Appendix 5 be considered further prior to a decision by FPBV Committee.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

D. Background papers

• Minutes of Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee - 19 December 2000 and 20 February 2001

D. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton, MPA Best Value Manager.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Agenda for best value sub-group (1 March 2001)

Appendix 2: Programme of Best Value Reviews (BVR)

(following MPA on 8 March 2001)

Notes:
Pilot best value review to report implementation plan to PSPM Committee.
MPA to contribute to GLA review of consultation in 2001/02 (but not repeat work)
Subject to decision at MPA on 8 March 2001
Subject to decision at MPA on 8 March 2001
Joint review within the GLA-family
Agreed 'Year 3' review (ACPO, APA and Home Office)
Not seen as desirable/feasible in Year 2
Subject to future scoping work

Appendix 3: Scoping study to inform a best value review of information management within the MPS

Executive summary

This study was undertaken to inform and define the boundaries of a Best Value Review (BVR) on the management of information within the Metropolitan Police Service. The study included a broad but shallow consultation process, a literary review and a specific review of MPS documentation and material.

The MPS has a long held vision that: 'Relevant and timely information should be accessible to all staff where appropriate, subject to restrictions, at any location from a multipurpose workstation as an integral part of their working environment.' It is our view that whilst this vision has been pursued in respect of our IT Strategy, the absence of a coherent information management strategy has meant that it could never be fully attained.

Drawing on the research, a number of issues were raised across the whole life-span of information from collection, through maintenance, to dissemination; all couched in a culture which, whilst being steeped in information, appears to hold little regard for its effective management. The scoping confirmed that the MPS has recognised this and is attempting to undergo a substantial change. Many initiatives are currently underway and there is a clear acknowledgement that improvement is necessary.

It soon became evident that an examination of the full gamut of our information management was likely to be too ambitious for one Review. In addition, with implementation of an information Strategy imminent, the timing is probably wrong.

A number of alternatives were also, considered which included: a full Review, but limited to Borough Operational Command Units; a Review of Records Management; and an examination of the intelligence function.

It was also proposed that further areas of work be considered. Whilst these are outside the scope of a BVR, we believe they are nonetheless necessary to progress the effective and efficient management of our information. These included: security of data; sharing information in partnership; management and performance information; and knowledge management.

The report concluded that 'information' is the key that will unlock the door to both a joined-up criminal justice system and joined-up Government. The direction we are heading in appears to be consistent with both Central Government and National Police thinking. However, essential foundations need to be firmly in place before we start to build for the future. With this in mind, we recommend a programme of Reviews to examine and evaluate information management within the Service. The first of these is Records Management; essential as a building block of a future strategy; and an area where substantial legislative drivers exist, not least the Freedom of Information Act.

[Scoping Study - BVR management of information]

Appendix 4: Review of managing information

(paper presented to the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001)

This paper summarises the MPS report attached at Annex B. It concludes that the need for a best value review of managing information has been effectively overtaken by MPS development of an information strategy. Members of the sub-group are asked to:

• consider the briefing note and report;
• confirm that the best value review should not proceed next year for the reasons given in this paper but that the matter is re-assessed following implementation of the MPS Information Strategy 2000.

Background

The MPS originally intended to undertake a best value review of 'managing information and combating bureaucracy' during 2000/01. However, the potential objectives and scope of such a review were subject to long debate and a number of changes were made. The key decisions are summarised at Annex A.

In essence, parallel MPS development of an information strategy raised fundamental questions about the scope of any review of 'managing information'. Indeed, it was recognised that the development of an information strategy could mean that a best value review was no longer be required or that such a review ought to be postponed to allow the information strategy time to be implemented.

Consequently, in September 2000 the best value programme board agreed that a short 'scoping study' should be undertaken. This work would allow members to make an informed decision as to whether a review of 'managing information' should be included in the overall programme of reviews and, if so, what the scope of that review should be.

The subsequent report was presented to the best value programme board on 29 January 2001 and is attached at Annex B1. Unfortunately circulation of the report was delayed and MPA attendees did not have an opportunity to consider the report prior to the meeting. It was agreed that the paper should be circulated to the sub-group for views.

A summary of the report is provided below together with an assessment of the options available to members. The report's author has been invited to attend the meeting on 1 March to discuss matters in more detail.

Summary of the scoping study

The MPS scoping study is attached at Annex B1* and members will wish to consider the report in more detail. In summary, the report:

• outlines the background and objective to the study;
• describes how the study was undertaken;
• presents findings in relation to a number of key issues linked to information:
• volume, security, storage, quality, culture and planned changes;
• suggests four possible areas for review (and assesses the pros and cons of each):

1. A full review
2. A borough-based review;
3. A review of records' management;
4. A review of intelligence.

• recommends that a review of records' management should be carried out (ie storage, indexing, search / retrieval, access / security, audit, appraisal and disposal).

*Not in the version circulated to FPBV committee meeting on 20 March (see summary at Appendix 3)

Assessment

It is considered that the study highlights many of the difficulties inherent in trying to get to grips with this subject, eg:

• issues surrounding terminology/definitions (eg meaning of 'knowledge management');
• large number of existing information systems (in different stages of development);
• wide range of complex pressures affecting future development.

The report seeks to simplify these matters by a staged approach. The report recommends:

• that there should be 'a programme of reviews to examine and evaluate information management within the Service'; and
• that 'records management' should be the first review in this programme.

However, the wider programme of reviews is not specified in detail and this makes it difficult to see the proposed review of records' management in context. In turn, this creates a greater risk of setting off on the wrong foot.

In addition, although the drivers for conducting a review of 'records management' are spelt out (eg introduction of the Freedom of Information Act) it seems less clear that these drivers necessarily need to be addressed via a full-blown best value review. In other words, the forthcoming legislation could be address by work other than best value review.

Finally, the implications of the launch (in April 2001) of the information strategy are hard to assess. The fact that a review of records' management is recommended supports the view that the work to develop an information strategy has, to a large degree, addressed issues that would otherwise have been addressed by the best value review.

It is considered that the best value sub-group has four basic options:

• endorse the recommendation in the report (ie to review 'records management');
• accept one of the other options suggested (but not recommended) in the report;
• commission further work by the MPS prior to making a decision;
• consider the default 'do nothing' option (eg postpone any review until implementation of the MPS information strategy is complete).

Conclusion

On balance it is considered that the report does not make a sufficiently strong case that a best value review of 'managing information' should be restricted in scope to a review of 'records management'. However, it is appreciated that further work may be required to improve records' management overall.

This conclusion is, in part, based on the fact that a review of 'records management' could not be a review focused on local service delivery (a point made in the report). This is one of the key criteria used by the sub-group to prioritise the order in which best value reviews are carried out.

The conclusion is also based on an assessment of the recommendations arising from the MPS' development of an information strategy (outlined in Appendix 3 of the MPS report). Those recommendations, if delivered, would go a long way in improving the management of information in the MPS and, as such, reduce the need for further review at this time.

Consequently, a final decision to undertake a best value review in the area of 'managing information' could wait until the results / benefits of the information strategy are clearer. In this way a decision can be made on actual progress and improvements rather than planned progress and estimated benefits.

Members are advised:

• that a best value review of managing information should not be undertaken next year (ie 2001/02); and
• that a decision to conduct a review of managing information should be re-assessed following implementation of the MPS Information Strategy 2000.

The view of the sub-group will influence the programme of best value reviews to be presented formally to the Authority on 8 March as part of an MPS paper describing the 2001/02 policing and performance plan.

Derrick Norton
21 February 2001

Annexes

A. Summary of work related to the review of 'managing information'

B. MPS scoping study for a review of 'information management'
(attached to original paper but not the paper circulated to FPBV Committee on 20 March – see summary at Appendix 3).

Annex A: Summary of work related to 'Managing Information'

*a PID (Project Initiation Document) typically includes the objectives, scope, rationale, plan, costs and benefits for a particular project: the 'blueprint' for the work

Appendix 5: MPS views on the recommended approach

1. It is not crucial for the information strategy to be in place before any 'best value' work is done with respect to 'managing information'.

2. There are external drivers requiring action (eg Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information Act).

3. Since work is required to address the drivers listed above then conducting this work under the best value regime would avoid unnecessary duplication.

4. Moving the best value review of managing information to later in the programme would, other things being equal, make the latter stages of the programme crowded.

5. There could be advantages to taking a 'hybrid' approach to the review (eg delivering improvements over the course of a best value review not just the end).

6. HMIC have suggested that care will be needed to ensure that the scope of reviews fully encompass the totality of MPA/MPS business over the five-year timescale.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback