Successful transformation of local government is well underway, driven in the main by a need to cut costs and be more efficient whilst engaging effectively with stakeholders in the community. It’s clear there are no roadmaps for such transformation or change programmes and it probably hasn’t happened on quite this scale for some time, if ever. However, councils have no choice – they must adapt to their financial situations and make the relevant changes to their operations, but how can they ensure and measure success?

Every council is different – each being responsible for putting its own house in order; and that means there is no one uniform way of doing things. Many will have already had to scale back on staff and budgets and will be looking for new ways to do things, but there is commonality across local government - they are all looking at ways of transforming what they do for the better and considering new ways of working to achieve higher aims, broken down into programmes to achieve those goals.

Measuring success is probably the most difficult part of the jigsaw puzzle. Often programmes for change are managed on a project basis with a team being formed to transform a given area. Once that project is complete and the team disperses, how is success measured in the future? For example, a council that has the aim of ‘making the borough safer’ may undertake a project of installing CCTV cameras. A project team is created, the project is undertaken and the cameras installed, and the project team disperses having completed its task. But at what point do people in the borough feel safer, or does the crime rate drop thanks to the newly installed cameras – this could be several years down the line – and just how is this measured?

Looking to technology

As part of their transformation programmes, many councils have looked to technology to aid in the measurement of the success of projects undertaken. Aside from the ability to evaluate success by setting and measuring against key performance indicators, technology also provides continuity after project teams have completed their aims and moved on. Successful transformation is being achieved by utilising recognised management tools – project management software is an enabler of transformation in many local councils at present.

It’s important to clarify outcomes from the beginning of any project knowing what the council wants to achieve so that it may be recorded at the outset and measured against at completion and beyond. When undertaking large scale transformation, recognition that a consistent method of reporting and governance is key throughout the projects and programmes ensures that success can be measured long after the project has been implemented.

In July 2010, for example, Wirral Council created a Strategic Change Programme to improve its project management efficiency requiring flexible user accounts across different geographical locations allowing task and resource management for over 150 team members. Wirral was clear about its requirements for workflow. Having implemented Concerto Projects it can visibly monitor progress of current and future projects and effectively schedule changes and manage risks within its change programme. Each project is undertaken to achieve the higher aim of change – and each project can be controlled and monitored to make sure that goal is met now and in future.

As we know, the political landscape can change as often as every four years and with each successive new government, policies and budgets change, but standing still is not an option and councils must prioritise.

Technology provides some consistency in a changing landscape - and even better, means that goals may still be met but can also be measured.

Concerto have featured on Public Technology.net today as Kevan Davey, Concerto’s Managing Director, talks frankly about the challenge of getting the SME into government work.

The article is as below, if you would like to see the original article please go to Public Technology.net

‘The real reasons SMEs don’t bid for public sector work’
The Cabinet Office and the PM have spoken a lot recently about how SMEs and start up businesses have the ability to fuel the growth the UK needs to aid Britain’s recovery from the recession.

But from where I’m currently sat as an SME technology company that deals mainly with local authorities, as well intended as David Cameron may be, it’s clear that where the public sector is concerned, there are still many barriers to SMEs tendering for contracts. Current procurement practices still make it very difficult for SMEs to apply for and win government contracts.

The problem: many SMEs simply don’t have the knowledge of where to begin to tender, and in many cases the guidance from local authorities in terms of how to go about it, what you must have in place to be eligible to pitch in the first place and how to best present your company to stand any chance of success is hard to find on authority websites and not particularly helpful.

Complexity
I get weekly emails from private sector organisations who have realised that there is money to be made from this complexity and offer their services in the form of training courses to attend to learn how to pitch for public sector contracts. The fact that entrepreneurs have spotted a gap in the market place fuelling an entirely separate training industry around the complexity of public sector procurement clearly identifies that there is a problem with the current situation

The overall attitude to ‘risk aversion’ by public sector organisations is the single major hindrance to local authorities engaging with SMEs. It’s fair enough that local authorities, when spending tax payers money, want to know that it’s being spent “safely”; that companies with which it engages do not suddenly go out of business or where there are maintenance contracts, are doing their job safely and within Health & Safety guidelines, but there are varying degrees of risk which should be dealt with differently to each other. Should a company supplying stationery or installing a new technology system be subject to the same strict measures as an asbestos contractor for example? The criteria and tender process to supply paper clips, is currently the same as anything else even though the risks are enormously different. And it can take between three and six months to get a decision, sometimes longer. What SME with limited staff resources can afford to dedicate such an enormous amount of time to be rewarded with a standard sized contract?

This attitude to risk aversion is inhibiting SMEs from tendering for contracts in the first place; it seems too much effort for little reward at the end. Which brings me to the hoops that SMEs must jump through before being allowed to tender.

Many authorities insist that a company must have been in business for three years, and have three years worth of accounts to show. They require public indemnity insurance, employers insurance, recognised quality systems, as well as environmental policies as part of the initial assessment. In a recent bid I have been involved with the council required £10,000,000 worth of professional indemnity insurance for an IT contract worth £40,000. Another authority set a bar of companies having £1,000,000 turnover as a minimum requirement as part of the initial pre qualification assessment.

Until the Coalition alters the public sector’s attitude to risk and much of the red tape pre, during and post tender, SMEs will focus their attention on other private sector contracts which are decided faster, are often more lucrative and require much less employee time to bring to fruition.

For more information on Concerto Projects or Concerto Sites please click on respectively, otherwise contact us here

In case you missed it – Concerto have recently featured in ADF Online, an architect data file, suggesting that it is time that Local Authorities took a corporate approach to managing asbestos in schools.

Kevan Davey, Managing Director at Concerto, expressed his concern that there are still too many UK local authorities that simply do not know which schools contain asbestos because they do not have the records that they need to hand. The data is typically spread across different service directorates who are effectively in charge of their own portfolio.

As a result, local authorities face difficulties remaining complaint with Health and Safety regulations with regard to asbestos because the records for each school are not centralised, but are spread over different databases.

Local authorities have a duty of care to both teachers and pupils in those schools and non compliance with Health and Safety could, in the worst possible case, lead to corporate manslaughter charges.

If you would like to read the full article we have the full text on the Concerto website which you can access here – www.concerto.co.uk/news or alternatively you can go to the ADF website by clicking here - http://bit.ly/AmCc4c

Another common gotcha that people are reporting is the categorisation of the blocks for the item 3 records (lowest level).

The download expects an alpha numeric code, which is actually a roman numeral classification of the ‘premise type’.

You need to ensure your blocks are assigned to a block category and that the block categories you use have the roman numeral code assigned to them.

The table below lists the codes.

Category	Code
Pre 1919	I
Inter war	II
1944-1966	III
1967-1976	IV
Post 1976	V
Temporary	VI

Just a quick reminder to our clients doing the DFE condition download.

Iit is important that your element groups match those prescribed by the DFE.  This includes the reference number, which is entered in the element group code.  These codes are also unique, you cannot have 2 element groups sharing the same reference.

Take a look at the full story on our website. For a taster....

Public Sector cloud computing has seen its fair share of column inches recently. Firstly there was the announcement by the Government’s of its tender notice announcing a plan to provide a range of cloud computing services through the ‘G Cloud’ - an environment designed specifically for the public sector. The tender received around 250 responses from potential suppliers this week and will see the Government embark on a ‘pay as you go’ model to procuring services for the public sector. Its target is to aim for half of central government’s new spending to be on cloud computing by the end of 2015.

At the coal face of local government, it’s certainly true that there is a willingness to adopt cloud based solutions for procurement more than ever before. The desire to reduce costs when purchasing products and services from suppliers whilst managing the purchase to pay cycle is driving adoption and understanding for cloud computing in other areas. However, when it comes to focussing on the day to day tasks and internal communication, cloud computing still has some way to go to catch up with private sector organisations.

So, what’s holding the public sector back? Undoubtedly one of the main factors is the fear surrounding security of documents and information.... 

Read the rest on our website

The Government’s move to ‘map’ English local authority assets, although commendable, is regionally flawed and London-centric.

It’s easy to see how selling off unused council buildings in the capital may yield a good financial return – but the same cannot be said of councils in less affluent regional locations.

This is the view held by Kevan Davey, Concerto’s Managing Director, and has been published in Public Sector Executive and Public Technology.net.

Click here to see our original blog article or take a look at the links below and let us know your thoughts via twitter on a Public Sector Asset Register.

Public Sector Executive Article

Public Technology.Net Article

Introduction

It is a accepted that councils have a duty to ensure that their buildings comply with appropriate statutory, regulatory and corporate standards. Councils face challenges in their ability to control and manage the public buildings they have a legal responsibility for and which are used by staff or clients. As increasing powers of delegation become a reality in an environment of cost cutting and head count reduction, this situation is becoming even more challenging.

The task of asset maintenance gets harder and more complex for FM managers as more legislative and regulatory duties become the responsibility of the buildings occupier(s).

For example, schools have the freedom to source and procure very large projects and on-going maintenance work without the requirement to consult or indeed inform the council of what work has been carried out, and yet the council is still responsible for the building.

Even though accountability of such duties ultimately lies with the council, delegation of relevant budgets is being passed to individual occupiers. This devolution of budgets means that there is less money centrally available to allow councils to develop robust compliance programmes as well as a loss of the day to day knowledge of its buildings leaving council FM managers with a lack of control over any compliance issues that must be taken care of. Shared services and partnering arrangements have further complicated the responsibility issues, especially in the area of landlord and tenant relationships.

FM Managers and Delegation of Powers

Adding to the fragmentation, FM managers are faced with significant Health and Safety responsibilities that also fall on building occupiers to undertake. The major challenge is to ensure that delegated powers to commence checks by the buildings’ service managers are being carried out and to the correct procedure and detail. The result is that councils are put in the unenviable position of having day to day responsibility for compliance and the majority of available resources being delegated to occupier level, but with the ultimate accountability remaining at corporate level with the council FM managers.

More...

The Government’s move to ‘map’ English local authority assets, although commendable, is regionally flawed and London-centric.

It’s easy to see how selling off unused council buildings in the capital may yield a good financial return – but the same cannot be said of councils in less affluent regional locations.

The commercial property market is depressed and council buildings that are already part of rationalisation programmes aren’t selling – they’re stood empty. Plus many of the council’s assets yield steady income; if they’re sold off, they generate a one-off lump sum – and at a reduced value during the recession.

Many council premises are schools; they probably make up the vast majority of public buildings, and they are rarely for sale. Land is often rural farm land and therefore cannot be sold for development and then there is a variety of other types of assets – everything from libraries and leisure centres, to beach huts in our coastal locations. But regionality plays an enormous part in their worth.

I work with facility and asset managers within thirty of the councils around the UK, and although its great that central government wants to know what each authority owns, the idea that it could produce a windfall if assets are sold in a depressed market is seriously flawed.

Many of the council’s are introducing web-based asset management systems so that documents, maintenance reports, health & safety checks and a variety of other asset based information can be stored and accessed from one online location, providing access to relevant documents across departments and ensuring legal compliance.

There are many councils that don’t have an accurate account of every asset they own, and installing asset management software allows them to keep track, ultimately providing the information for central government of local authority owned assets – it’s a powerful tool for councils to have at their disposal.

However, tracking the assets is only the first part of the task – it’s what Eric Pickles proposes they should do with them once they’re accounted for that’s flawed.

Food for thought in the Concerto office today after the Education Secretary, Mr Gove, has refused to reinstate a string of school ‘revamps’ which the high court had said he had scrapped unlawfully.

Arguing that his main reasoning was ‘absolute fairness’ in the distribution of resources at his disposal Mr Gove has ended the rebuilds of around 700 schools whilst allowing 600 schemes to continue. The 600 schemes that were allowed to continue were done so on the grounds that they were too far advanced, which seems to be a matter of timing rather than considered thought, and it has caused outrage from a number of head teachers, pupils and MPs feeling the blow of Mr Gove’s decision.

The overarching theory behind his choice, other than ‘absolute fairness’, is to end the ‘flagship’ Labour BSF schemes and replace with the new build fund. The new build fund would be open to all local authorities and schools and in a speech to the House of Commons Mr Gove announced “they will all be eligible for support from the new programmes I am establishing to cater for population growth in the areas most in need and the worst dilapidation.”

The scheme will be based on a number of cost saving techniques, such has having an ‘off-the-shelf’ building design strategy, whereby schools would be invited to pick from a list of standardised building templates. Will be a story in itself to see how well that works out.

Perhaps the most interesting section of this story comes from the challenge Andrew Burnham, Shadow Education Secretary, has laid down in asking Mr Gove to disclose the cost to the taxpayer to reimburse the six councils affected. It will be interesting to see how he dodges that bullet, looks like he could use some help with his budget.