| |
 |
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
Fear and loathing of cash-strapped councils |
|
Local authorities need to remove their blinkers and embrace shared services as a solution to tight budgets and cash-hungry frontline services, argues Anwen Robinson, sales director at ERP software firm Agresso.
Local councils need to overcome fears fuelled by political differences and an inherent resistance to change to take advantage of shared services and offer local tax payers value for money on frontline services.
It was inevitable that certain factions within local councils would be resistant to the idea of developing commercial schemes or joining forces with neighbouring boroughs, even if those boroughs are of the same political colour. To a certain extent their attitudes are understandable, no one wants to divulge sensitive information unnecessarily or open the books to ‘competitive’ boroughs but these fears are unfounded.
It is of course the job of government and suppliers to convince the sceptics but there also has to be some give on the local government side, some willingness to see the bigger picture. At a recent Agresso conference on transformational government, Councillor Paul Bettison, leader of Bracknell Forest Council claimed that the issues of control and political differences are undermining progress in local government and that these issues are based on ignorance of what shared services are all about. This, he said, resulted in a culture of stonewalling when the issue of shared services is raised.
He referred to these doubters as “the challenge” claiming that through experience in his own borough he had seen how shared services can help an authority flourish.
His views were echoed by former Home Office director of shared services David Myers who claimed that he has collated 37 reasons why any public sector body is reluctant to embrace shared services. Just about everything is being used by objectors to dismiss shared services, including the idea that it is too radical a move.
Included in this list is IT, technical and procurement issues. As a supplier of ERP software used to underpin shared service provision and control, we refute these points vehemently. How can any council use this as an excuse when there are widely publicised solutions that can do the job efficiently? We would challenge any sceptical council to pinpoint a shared service software problem that could not be solved.
So why is there so much fear? David Myers and Paul Bettison both pointed to a reactionary element that exists in most local councils. This centres on control and to a degree, ego. These people will always look for excuses not to do something outside of their grasp.
The annual IT trends report from local authority user group Socitm found that local councils rank shared services as fourth in a list (below flexible working) of possible policies for improving efficiency. This is indicative either of a lack of understanding of the real benefits of shared services, or it may be due to Socitm interviewing the sceptics - the people in power that fear loss of power. This is missing the point entirely.
Shared services is a long term vision that can not just make huge savings for councils but can also provide frontline services that have been unachievable due to cost constraints. Flexible working, for example, saves some capital cost but only if you impose a flexible desk policy to reduce the overhead. The cost savings involved with shared services run to millions of pounds with the added bonus of developing new frontline services for the local tax payer.
The question should really be, ‘what services can we deliver and who do we share with?’ It is interesting to see the Socitm and GovMetric venture to help councils measure customer satisfaction and value for money of local services. Called the Customer Access Improvement Service (CAIS), the project is a sign of the change in thinking needed to develop local government further.
Accountability, value for money and improved local services should be central to modern council thinking. Shared services is a vehicle for making this happen. Sceptics within local government need to realise this fast and park their egos and political differences. According to Paul Bettison political beliefs are not compromised in his shared services experiences and he therefore believes such fears are unfounded.
He also believes that organisations that do not share will need to justify that decision, as things are now tighter financially. He says that it has reached the stage where his authority is looking at ways of saving £5,000, when 11 years ago he was only looking to save £50,000 or more.
The bottom line is that it is local government’s duty to make the most of their resources. Tim Marshall, chief executive of education network JANET says organisations must be prepared to accept change and that a good shared service cannot be delivered without pain.
He is right of course. His claim that “public money is very precious and should be spent wisely” is spot on. He also says that “if people are creating barriers to delivering public value, let them take their pensions.” We wouldn’t advocate redundancy but unless there is a change in attitude and the sceptics are won over, something has to give. Unfortunately that could mean reduced frontline services and an even larger hole in local tax payers’ pockets.
Visit website
|
| |
|
Business Area, Industry Skills
|
Professional Services, integrated business information and management systems
|
|
Specific Service Skills or Product Expertise |
Financial analysis software, ERP, HR and CRM,shared services, modular ERP provision, software consultancy and post-sales support
|
|
Keywords |
Agresso, shared services, ERP, Gershon, public sector, local government, councils, financial software, CRM, workflow, HR, e-business, procurement, e-procurement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|