Proposals for an MPS bureaucracy minimisation programme

Report: 7
Date: 17 May 2007
By: Director of Strategy, Modernisation and Performance on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This paper proposes how the MPS could take forward more coherently various actions intended to tackle unnecessary bureaucracy within the Service. A Bureaucracy Minimisation Programme (BMP) is proposed that would be cognisant of existing programmes and other important influences in this domain, including the following: MPS Productivity Strategy Board, Met Modernisation Programme (MMP), National Bureaucracy Adviser’s report and other initiatives arising through the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA).

The proposed approach would enable the effective co-ordination of all activity aimed at reducing unnecessary bureaucracy within the MPS and provide visibility of respective contributions from established programmes and initiatives while also allowing the commissioning of complementary work, in accordance with agreed priorities, where this becomes necessary.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members support the formulation of an MPS Bureaucracy Minimisation Programme that would complement existing Productivity and MMP work-streams and take into account any emerging priorities for bureaucracy minimisation; and
2. note and support the proposed MPS Ideas & Suggestions Scheme, intended to encourage and facilitate front-line contributions towards bureaucracy minimisation, and be willing to participate in the proposed Awards Panel for the scheme.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The National Bureaucracy Adviser (NBA), in reporting to the Policing Bureaucracy Implementation Steering Group (PBISG) in October 2006, identified the issues listed in Appendix 1 as areas of ‘national concern’ for reductions in Police Service bureaucracy because they had been identified by a ‘number of forces’. The role of the PBISG has now been subsumed within the remit of the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA); however, the Home Office NBA post has remained unfilled since October 2006.

PBISG and NPIA

2. The NBA’s report was accepted by the meeting of the PBISG held in October 2006. However, reflecting concerns that the findings in the NBA’s report should be taken into account when prioritising ongoing work, the current members of the PBISG agreed in February 2007 that they would submit proposals for a national-level oversight group to be formed for co-ordinating the continuing engagement of the Service in the policing bureaucracy arena, to work alongside the NPIA. Details relating to this proposal have yet to emerge but the MPS would continue to participate through the proposed successor to the PBISG.

Proposed way forward for tackling unnecessary bureaucracy in the MPS

3. In view of the present scenario, as described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, it is proposed that the MPS develop a strategy for tackling unnecessary bureaucracy as part of a Bureaucracy Minimisation Programme (BMP). Essentially, the proposed BMP would identify a portfolio of bureaucracy minimisation projects that would deal with identified problems in accordance with agreed priorities and taking into account planned activities associated with other initiatives and programmes, as shown in diagram 1 (see supporting material).

Essentially, it is proposed that BMP-related work would be carried out under the auspices of the Productivity Working Group (PWG), be cognisant of the NBA’s and National Bureaucracy Task Force’s findings (as adopted or amended through the NPIA) and also be receptive to validated inputs received through the proposed MPS Ideas & Suggestions Scheme and Organisational Learning Programme. Any additional BMP portfolio would also be complementary to and not duplicate work sponsored through other initiatives and programmes such as the Met Modernisation Programme (MMP) and the Productivity Workstream.

Interface of proposed BMP with MMP

4. The potential contributions of the proposed BMP, alongside and through other enabling programmes, to the Met Modernisation Programme and the Productivity Work Stream are illustrated in diagram 2 (see supporting material).

Proposed ideas & suggestions scheme

5. The MPS continues to be without a credible scheme for encouraging, receiving and evaluating potentially valuable suggestions and ideas. Accordingly, proposals for a streamlined, cost effective and highly automated on-line process for the receipt and progression of ideas and suggestions was submitted to and approved by Management Board in March 2007. The proposed system, which is described in Appendix 2, would employ a robust filtration system operating under the auspices of the MPS Productivity Working Group. The proposed scheme would also include an Awards Panel to oversee the allocation of any financial awards for ideas and suggestions received that are subsequently implemented with demonstrable efficiency and/or effectiveness gains. The active participation of the MPA on the proposed Awards Panel will be sought.

Review of existing suggestions portfolio

6. A total of 42 received ideas & suggestions were still actively being investigated within the MPS during 2006/07. These have now been reviewed by the Anti Bureaucracy Unit (ABU) Inspector and reduced to up to 10 potentially feasible items that are listed in Appendix 3. The latter will now be scrutinised in accordance with the criteria and process set out in the proposed ideas & suggestions scheme (Appendix 2 refers).

Home Secretary policy review

7. The Home Secretary has announced a major review nationally of four key “reform” stands – one of which is reducing bureaucracy. We plan to make a substantial input to this work and influence the scale of ambition around key issues, such as crime recording, in this context.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no equality/diversity issues arising from this report. Should any suggestions taken forward be equality impact assessed?

D. Financial implications

The additional resource implications of the proposed ideas & suggestions scheme are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 – Estimate of Additional Costs for the Proposed Ideas & Suggestions Scheme

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Mike Boyles, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Tackling Unnecessary Bureaucracy: Areas of concern identified by the Police National Bureaucracy Adviser

1. Penalty notices for disorder (PND). Forces were reported to have adopted a variety of policies concerning the issue of PNDs.

2. National Intelligence Model (NIM). The NIM process was considered to have become ‘overly bureaucratic’ in some areas, and ‘more focused on the production of products (charts, profiles, reports) than on providing information of use to front-line staff’.

3. Personal Development Reviews (PDR). There was a ‘widely held view that the PDR process had become more important than the quality of communication between supervisor/manager and respective members of staff’.

4. Crime recording. The advisers reported several solutions for the ‘timely and accurate recording of crime’ but none were considered to provide ‘the complete solution’. The advisers’ concluded by saying that ‘the obvious solution was to provide frontline staff with the technology to input the crime recording data at the scene via handheld wireless computers’.

5. Case preparation. Frontline staff indicated to the advisers that they ‘do not see any advantages arising from recent improvements to case preparation – they still have to input the same details many times’. Further, the ongoing need to submit paper copy to the CPS ‘resulted in more work – which does not add any value to the process’.

6. NSPIS Custody. While custody officers had reported that NSPIS Custody ‘worked well for them’, although in some areas problems had to be overcome (e.g. bail management), the system was found to be ‘less flexible’ by other users who had to resort to ‘additional spreadsheets and programs’ for collating information and this added a ‘bureaucratic burden within the custody process’.

7. Statutory charging. The advisers reported that, although improvements in the process had been achieved, there remained ‘significant areas of work’ to be done.

8. General custody. Custody was considered a function with ‘the area of greatest bureaucracy’. In particular, the following were considered to be ‘areas of increased unnecessary bureaucracy’:

• Detention of people under the Mental Health Act.
• Access to interpreters.
• Use of additional spreadsheets for collation of data (e.g. AMEC, annual returns, etc).

9. Drug testing. This initiative, while retaining the full support of frontline staff, was considered to be ‘undermined by unnecessary bureaucracy’ (e.g. form for drug testing on arrest).

10. Technology. The advisers reported a variety of ongoing concerns by front-line staff relating to being ‘tied to the computer’. Particular issues raised included the following:

• Over–reliance on e-mails to disseminate information.
• Multiple passwords.
• Supervision burden for system updates.
• Data collection burden and audit requirements.
• Negative experiences associated with E-learning.

11. Court issues. The advisers reported that ‘some court listing and defence practices ‘mitigated against efforts to reduce bureaucracy’ for front-line staff and improve services to victims and witnesses.

12. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). The advisers reported that their intervention, in association with the Home Office, ACPO and Superintendents Association, had ‘dealt with the increase in bureaucracy associated with the introduction of RIPA’.

Appendix 2

Proposals for encouraging, recognising and rewarding ideas & suggestions in the MPS

1. Outline business requirement

• Need a staff suggestion scheme that encourages all staff (police officers, police staff, other members of the extended policing family, MPS contractors and, possibly, ex-employees of the MPS) to contribute ideas for improving efficiency anywhere within the MPS and that recognises the value of their contribution.
• Need a scheme that also recognises and rewards ideas that are eventually put into practice.
• Particular emphasis will be paid to contributions from frontline officers and staff.
• To demonstrate management commitment at the highest level, it is proposed that the Deputy Commissioner be the Management Board sponsor for the progression of ideas and suggestions within the MPS.

2. Characteristics of the required scheme

• A scheme needs to be designed which is able to capture any idea/suggestion that satisfies one or more of the following criteria:

1. Accords with corporate priorities, (with ability to ‘fast track’ particularly appropriate ideas and suggestions)
2. Achieves greater efficiency or operational effectiveness, particularly with regard to our core business.
3. Improves the design, use or maintenance of equipment.
4. Improves safety or quality.
5. Achieves savings for the MPS.
6. Provides some environmental benefit.
   • Submissions to the Scheme could be made by individuals or by part of a team.
   • In the case of group suggestions, any award should take account of the agreed percentage contribution made by each member of the group. Ideally, the latter should be agreed and specified before the submission of the suggestion for evaluation.
   • Contributors should have direct access to the scheme without the need to consult line managers. However, the Scheme should not be a substitute for reporting shortcomings in processes, equipment or materials that should be made through normal channels. Nevertheless, a suggestion should not be excluded from the Scheme simply because it falls within the normal duties of the originator(s) – this aspect would need to be taken into account when deciding whether the suggestion qualifies for an award and the size of any award. Advice on the eligibility of an idea for consideration under the proposed scheme should be sought from the Anti Bureaucracy Unit (ABU) Inspector.

3. Process for making a suggestion

• Suggestions should be submitted on an easy-to-complete Suggestion Form (format to be designed/agreed); forms to be submitted electronically.
• Guidance notes for the proposed Suggestion Form should be available with the proposed form and on the MPS intranet. Further guidance would be available from the ABU Inspector as required.
• Before submitting an idea for consideration, originator(s) should check (via the proposed Registered Suggestions Database) that a similar suggestion has not previously been submitted.
• When explaining an idea/suggestion, originators should briefly describe the current situation and how this could be improved and how the idea would work in practice.
• The Suggestion Form should be downloaded from the designated intranet site whereupon it will be automatically issued with a registration number. When completed by the originator(s) the form should be submitted to the ABU Inspector for initial assessment.
• The Suggestion Form should be accompanied by any necessary supporting documentation (additional text, diagrams, etc) together with the originator(s) job description or terms of reference.
• When making the initial assessment the ABU Inspector may need to refer to local or specialist OCUs as required, or refer back to the originator(s) for further clarification.
• The ABU will act as gatekeeper for suggestions submitted to the Productivity Working Group (PWG).
• Ideas and suggestions emanating at (B)OCU level and which are deemed to be applicable only locally should be considered by local management teams in accordance with locally agreed criteria.
• Those ideas and suggestions considered to have the potential for Service-wide application should be submitted for consideration and evaluation under the corporate scheme described in this paper.

4. The evaluation process

• If supported by the ABU Inspector, the Suggestion Form should be submitted to the PWG with recommendations concerning further evaluation.
• If supported in principle by the PWG (criteria to be agreed), the appropriate business group(s) will then be tasked by the PWG, through the business group representative on the Steering Group, with carrying out further investigation and evaluation of the suggestion.
• The evaluation should take into account the following:

1. The originality of the suggestion.
2. Whether it has local or wider application.
3. Assessment of any savings, efficiency gains or any other benefits arising from the idea/suggestion.
4. Indication of whether or not the suggestion will be or has been implemented.
   • The burden of evaluation placed on business groups must not be underestimated. Accordingly, the submission of proposals for further evaluation will of necessity be highly regulated, initially by the ABU inspector and subsequently under the auspices of the PWG.
   • In principle, only those suggestions that are implemented would be eligible for an award. However, there could be discretion for recognition of unsuccessful but deserving cases, particularly if a valid suggestion has to be put on hold pending a later opportunity for implementation.
   • The ABU would be required to monitor progress with the evaluation of suggestions on behalf of the PWG and, accordingly, would therefore need to make use of an appropriate Ideas & Suggestions database and management information system.

5. Recognition and awards

• Once the evaluation is complete, the evaluating business group will determine if and when the considered suggestion should be implemented. Any eligibility for an award should be determined by an independent Awards Panel, taking into account the evaluator’s comments and the normal duties of the originator(s).
• If considered eligible, relevant details will be submitted to the independent Awards Panel for consideration. It is suggested that the Awards Panel should include representation from the MPA, the Trade Unions and staff associations.
• If the suggestion is judged to be wholly within the normal duties of the originator(s) the latter will only be eligible for an award if one or more of the following conditions apply:

1. The suggestion is of exceptional brilliance or utility.
2. The initiator(s) have displayed outstanding initiative, foresight and resourcefulness in making or developing the proffered suggestion.
3. The suggestion has been adapted for use in a role that is significantly different from that originally intended.
   • Assessments of the level of any award, to be determined by the proposed Awards Panel, should take into account any estimate of cashable savings (say for the first three years of use of the suggestion).
   • Where savings cannot be quantified or are not applicable, the level of the award could be determined on the basis of the scale of the potential benefit to the MPS.
   • When assessing the level of an award the following should also be taken into account:
   1. The closeness of the suggestion to the originator(s) normal duties.
   2. The novelty and complexity of the suggestion.
   3. The contribution to the attainment of corporate priorities.
      • Not every suggestion will result in a financial award; recognition and acknowledgement of a valued submission should also be possible without financial remuneration.

6. Relationship to Business Group and local schemes

The proposals contained in this paper relate to a corporate scheme designed to capture ideas and suggestions that have Service-wide applicability. However, it is recognised that ideas and suggestions will arise that are applicable only at business group or local (OCU) levels. Accordingly, the proposed corporate scheme should be regarded as being additional to any existing arrangements operating at business group and local levels.

7. Questions addressed:

1. Who can submit an idea/suggestion?
   Anyone, police officer or police staff, full or part time; contractors’ staff (provided the idea benefits the MPS and is not already covered by contract); ex-employees (and, possibly, members of the public?).
2. Could staff be directed to particular areas in the search for ideas?
   Managers should be encouraged to invite ideas on any aspect of their part of the organisation and to support the submission of potentially useful suggestions to the evaluation process.
3. What sort of ideas should be encouraged?
   Any idea that has the potential to result in an improvement to the MPS and the services it provides. Ideas do not have to be complicated; simple ideas are often the best. Ideas may relate to local problems or have wider applicability within the MPS.
4. Ideas associated with the originator(s) job?
   Ideas that are wholly within the originator(s) job(s) terms of reference would not normally be the subject of an award. However, it should be recognised that many successful ideas come from people who spot opportunities in the course of their work and whose initiative in developing the respective solutions goes beyond what could reasonably be expected of them. Accordingly, such efforts could reasonably be acknowledged and the subject of an award.
5. What about ideas already in use?
   Ideas could still be entered for consideration under the Scheme (provided not more than (say) three years after the date of implementation). An important aspect of the proposed scheme is to provide recognition for good ideas that are put into practice.
6. What about IT suggestions?
   While IT-related ideas and suggestions should be welcomed for consideration it should be recognised that, because of the widespread availability of IT skills and innovative software, proposals for an IT-based solution should only be considered if demonstrably exceptional in some respect and only after reference to DoI as part of the evaluation process.

8. Essential components of the required suggestion form:

1. Description of the suggestion, in terms of the following:
   • What is the problem to be addressed, or the opportunity presented?
   • What is the proposed solution?
   • How would the solution work?
   • What are the potential benefits?
2. Originator(s) contact details.
3. Initial ABU Assessment. Feasibility; applicability locally and/or Service-wide; endorsement of submission to VfMSG or explanation of why a suggestion is not supported. Completed with reference to local or specialist OCUs, or other departments, as required.
4. Other information:
   • Would the idea be subject to patenting or copyright or are there any other legal implications?
   • If an award is made, would the recipient (s) be content for the level of award to be publicised?
   • In the case of group suggestions, what is the agreed percentage contribution made by each member of the group? This information is to be agreed and provided on the Suggestions Form prior to the submission of the form to the ABU.

9. Essential components of the required evaluation form:

1. Implementation: Has implementation of the suggestion been authorised and/or, for suggestions affecting equipment, has the suggestion been selected for tests or trials to determine its suitability?
2. Assessment of the suggestion. For example: independent assessment of feasibility, any implications for interfacing processes and/or equipment? Comment on applicability locally and Service-wide including identification of any problems/issues to be overcome in the workplace; any implications for training?
3. Estimate of savings, if applicable. It is suggested that the net savings arising, say, over the first three years of implementation should be assessed and provided in tabular form showing the following:
   • Savings (including a breakdown as applicable).
   • Costs (broken down as applicable).
   • Net savings
4. Assessment of the originality of the idea/suggestion.
5. Assessment of the closeness of the idea/suggestion to the normal duties of the originator(s).
6. Evaluator’s recommendation(s) and sign off. If the suggestion is not recommended for implementation the reasons for this should be explained.

10. Resource Implications of the Proposed Corporate Suggestion Scheme:

The proposed suggestion scheme outlined above would require the following additional resources:

• Procurement and implementation (i.e. installation, training and maintenance) of a database for registering and managing the progression of suggestions received (the proposed Suggestions Database), with an MPS intranet interface.
• Additional member of staff to serve as database administrator within the ABU (banding to be determined by the Hay review process). Ultimately, the number of staff required in the ABU to provide initial assessments of suggestions will be determined by the rate at which suggestions are received. Accordingly, in due course, the ABU Inspector may require assistance at PS and/or band D/E level (banding to be determined by the Hay review process).
• The proposed scheme would also be dependent on the establishment of an Awards Panel, possibly required to meet at least quarterly (depending on the rate at which valid suggestions are received).

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback