Efficiency and effectiveness review programme

Report: 07
Date: 12 December 2002
By: Treasurer

Summary

This report updates progress made in the efficiency and effectiveness reviews. The final shifts and civilianisation management summaries from Accenture are attached for members’ information. Progress on proposals for Tranche 3 reviews is also reported.

A. Recommendation

That members

1.  note the progress on the Efficiency and Effectiveness reviews;and
2. note the deferral of the management structures and sickness reviews.

B. Supporting information

Final reports – shift patterns and civilianisation

1. The Efficiency and Effectiveness Project Board met on 22 October and 19 November with Accenture in attendance. Accenture produced their final report on shift patterns and civilianisation. Management summaries are attached at Appendix 1 and 2 respectively. Full copies of the reports are available in the Members Room.

2. The recommendations of the civilianisation review clearly have budgetary implications. If police officer numbers cannot be reduced then civilianisation options can only be pursued through the investment of additional funds, as is happening currently with C3i. An agreed operational policing measure is required to justify alternative approaches, which would involve a reduction in officer numbers, but, an increase in the numbers of operational officers. Progress on the development of the operational policing measure is due to be reported in January 2003. The issue of civilianisation should be reviewed in that context.

Management structures and the management of organisational growth

3. The Board decided to defer further work on the review of management structures after consideration of the Accenture scoping presentation at the October meeting. In part this decision reflected the need to take an early look at a proposed new review on ‘management of organisational growth’, which had been supported by the Steering Group (Mayor, Chair MPA, Commissioner) as a priority for Tranche 3. The MPS have indicated that there could be benefits from commencing this review as quickly as possible. Accordingly Accenture were tasked to scope this issue and presented their findings to the November Project Board. The Board are presently considering the most appropriate way to take this work forward. It is intended to report further on this matter to the next meeting of the Committee.

Other progress

4. The Project Board has also received interim presentations on inspection, HR and a scoping report on sickness. The Board considered that further work on the sickness review should be put on hold pending the imminent regulatory changes in respect of sickness management expected at the end of the year. Generally the Board are content with the progress made to date by Accenture.

Tranche 3

5. The Board considered possible review areas for Tranche 3 at its November meeting. Further work is being undertaken to consider a mix of measures for Tranche 3 which would encompass (a) a focus on implementation, (b) traditional consultancy reviews and (c) resource support. The Board will be considering this further at its meeting on 10 December, in particular the balance of activities between (a), (b) & (c) and any decisions will be reported orally to the Committee.

6. MPS Consultancy Group has prepared draft Terms of Reference that will form the basis of the specification for the Invitation to Tender. These will be presented to the January meeting of this Committee, together with the proposed timetable.

7. Due to the rephrasing of reviews in Tranche 2 (paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of this report) it may be possible to bring forward some Tranche 3 activities into year 2. This is currently being considered and will be reported to committee as part of the overall proposals by the Board on Tranche 3.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The successful implementation of many of Accenture’s recommendations, particularly in HR, requires the best principles in this field to be adopted.

D. Financial implications

Budget provision of £1 million has been made in the 2002-03 budget to fund Tranche 2 of the efficiency and effectiveness programme. A similar sum is to be provided in the following year to finance the Tranche 3 mix of reviews and resource support.

E. Background papers

Accenture final reports on shifts and civilianisation.

F. Contact details

Report author: Ken Hunt, Deputy Treasurer

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Efficiency and Effectiveness Review Programme Shifts Review – Summary Report

MPA Finance Committee 12th December 2002

Background

1. Accenture was asked to undertake a review of shift patterns in the MPS as part of the MPA’s Efficiency & Effectiveness Review Programme.

2. The review had three main drivers:

1. Shift patterns were identified as potential enablers of recommendations from sickness and overtime reviews
2. There was stakeholder concern about whether the number and diversity of shift patterns in the MPS was justifiable
3. Similar concern existed at the amount of effort being invested by OCUs in reviewing and revising shift patterns – with frequent duplication of effort, lack of knowledge sharing and wasted resources

3. Accenture was tasked with investigating these drivers, particularly in the context of BOCU response teams. The objective was not to come up with an ‘ideal’ shift pattern – not least because all shift patterns are necessarily a trade off between competing pressures. Instead it was to propose some optimum solutions from among the plethora of options currently in operation, in order to give BOCUs a head start when reviewing their current shift patterns. A draft guidance document on reviewing and implementing shift pattern changes was also requested.

Methodology

4. We used both quantitative and qualitative techniques to evaluate current MPS shift patterns, and those allegedly representing good practice from other forces. The shifts were evaluated against two primary criteria:

1. The extent to which they aligned response officers to patterns of demand (measured by the statistical match between officer supply and CAD demand);
2. The extent to which they met the needs of officers, both in terms of the Working Time Directive and emerging consensus on health and welfare issues (scored by Shiftcheck software and supported by qualitative evaluation).

5. The qualitative work included face-to-face interviews with officers in 14 BOCUs (from BOCU Commanders to duties office staff to Constables on response teams) plus TP senior managers, HR staff and representatives from the Federation and civil staff associations. We also consulted widely with national experts in the field (e.g. Merseyside Work Scheduling Unit) and other UK police forces. The recommendations of the review were also tested in two focus groups of BOCU staff, chaired by the Director of HR, and modified in light of feedback from these groups.

Findings

6. One particular shift system – a 15-week variable system – scored highest against both sets of criteria. Several MPS BOCUs have already implemented similar shift patterns, and others are considering doing so, for both operational and officer welfare reasons.

7. In spite of strong similarity in patterns of response demand across the MPS (27 out of 32 BOCUs experience average CAD demand that rises, peaks and falls within one hour of one another), this shift system will clearly not be right for every BOCU. For example, the nature of CAD demand varies across BOCUs; some BOCUs will have different priorities in relation to proactive policing; others face unusual demands, such as those derived from policing football. The popularity of alternative shift systems in Charing Cross, Croydon and Kensington & Chelsea, for example, confirms this.

8. However, we should be clear about the nature of the proposals contained in the review. By putting forward what we have termed a ‘default’ pattern, we are offering a head start for BOCUs when reviewing their shift patterns. TP can therefore be confident that BOCUs are considering a shift pattern that offers a strong match with demand patterns and substantial health and welfare benefits for officers (with additional potential benefits in sickness reduction and staff satisfaction improvements) and will be spending considerably less time reviewing their shift patterns and ‘reinventing the wheel’.

9. The proposal is not that all BOCUs should adopt this shift pattern – not even that they should necessarily change their plans for reviewing their shift patterns – merely that the default pattern should be one of the shift systems BOCUs use as a starting point in their reviews. Others might include the 12-hour pattern recently adopted in Kensington & Chelsea, Merton’s variable shift system or Charing Cross’s permanent night shift. If a BOCU reviewed its shift pattern and proposed to adopt a pattern that differs significantly from these, it would need to produce an evidence-based justification for its alternative proposals that was sufficient to satisfy MPS decision-makers.

10. It should be remembered, of course, that any change in shift system requires agreement from both participating officers and Federation reps (unless it is to the national four-week rota). The draft guidance document provided as an appendix to the report not only offers tools and techniques for reviewing shift patterns but also for implementing a new pattern, based on best practice identified around the MPS and elsewhere. Other recommendations contained in the report address policy on the Working Time Directive and flexible working; on the need for central ownership of resource planning issues; on conducting resource needs analyses; and, the role of MetFed as partners in evaluating and implementing shift patterns.

Next steps

11. Precisely how the report’s proposals are taken forward is not a decision for Accenture, but for the MPS and MPA. For example, there will need to be a debate about the role (if any) of the MPA in reviewing BOCU thinking about shifts. Initial soundings indicate it is highly likely that, as decisions on shift systems are of an operational nature, the MPA will be happy to delegate all consideration to MPS senior management. The MPA will need to be satisfied that adequate management arrangements are in place for decision making over the adoption of shift patterns; beyond this, MPA interest in shifts is likely only where a BOCU is under-performing and where this under-performance is linked to the shift pattern used by that BOCU.

12. TP senior management are keen for the ‘default’ and other shift patterns to be evaluated in the MPS context. Preliminary proposals for next steps therefore include TP:

1. Looking to initiate variations of the default system in BOCUs
2. Assisting BOCUs in generating support among officers and MetFed (the Accenture guidance on communication and consultation will be of assistance here)
3. Conducting a robust evaluation of each shift system against crime reduction, officer satisfaction, public satisfaction, call response times, overtime and sickness rates
4. Updating the implementation guidance and toolkit in light of evaluation
5. Ensuring BOCUs subsequently conduct simple resource-needs analyses and shift reviews (using the guidance and toolkit) on a regular basis

13. This process will be coordinated by the TP Commander (Patrol), with additional support from HR in relation to, for example, police regulations or working time legislation.

14. The shift pattern is an emotive subject for police officers – understandably, given the stake that both managers and shift workers alike have in it. However, some shift patterns are better than others for both sets of parties – and, as we have seen in the workshops with BOCU staff in testing the review’s findings, emotional resistance to changes in shift patterns can be overcome through open discussion of the costs and benefits of different shift systems. Partly as a result of these discussions, we strongly believe the recommendations in the review offer the MPS, and TP management in particular, tools and techniques that can help improve operational effectiveness and make the most of BOCU resources.

Summary of recommendations

1 Given the potential benefits for matching demand and supply and for optimising officer welfare, we recommend all BOCUs should treat the MPS default shift pattern as the starting point when reviewing their shift patterns.

2 Using the draft guidance as a starting point, the MPS should finalise guidance for evaluating and implementing shift patterns. This should ideally involve additional consultation (e.g. with staff associations). The finalised document should be owned, maintained and publicised by a central unit – we would recommend HR Policy – be published on the intranet, and should be dynamic (capturing ongoing good practice and learning)

3 The MPS should consider engaging with MetFed as partners in developing and owning the guidance.

4 All OCUs should undertake a resource needs analysis at least annually both to ensure best-fit with demand and to identify the extent of flexible working that can be accommodated; the results of this should be published within the OCU and made available to central HR to ensure staff are aware of the OCU’s demand and resourcing requirements.

5 Staff from the unit assigned responsibility for overseeing shift-related issues centrally should attend the Merseyside Police Resource Management Course (cost £1000 pp) and purchase the Shiftcheck software (cost £500).

6 The MPS should finalise and publish its policy statement on Working Time Regulations at the earliest opportunity accompanied by a communication strategy to ensure widest possible readership. The statement should be illustrated with reference to shift and overtime patterns to facilitate appreciation of the relevance to OCU resourcing.

7 The MPS should continue to promote flexible working practices for all staff, irrespective of whether they are engaged on shift patterns.

8 Updated guidance should be produced by the MPS on the procedure for agreeing flexible working practices (including the establishment of a demand-led business case), the legislative background (informed by the outcomes of employment tribunals) and formal appeal measures; it should also address policy on carers.

9 The MPS should monitor centrally the availability and take up of flexible working across all OCUs.

10. Whilst no targets should be set in relation to the improvement opportunities identified, the MPS should track these measures for each BOCU over the next 12–24 months.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback