A previous blog posting looked at evidence of how change programmes designed to save money and streamline shared services in UK Central Government appear to have come off the rails during delivery. Obviously, none of these programmes set out with the intention of failing and, presumably, they had business cases considered “robust” by those who approved them. Most involved private sector consultancies and IT companies with contractual delivery targets, undoubtedly intended to reduce the risks of failure to the public purse based on their expertise.
Shared Services have a history in the back office, but also remain a major focus of front office changes to save efficiency and improve the customer facing experience of public services.
- Insufficient focus on, and tracking of, programme benefits
- Overly complex solutions and ERP technology, insisted upon as the focus of benefits with a loss of effective supplier management
- Voluntary participation reducing expected demand and negating the benefits of scale.
- The way that I work tomorrow is going to be different from how things are today. Doing things differently means it’ll be easier for me to give my customers the service they need.
- The difficulties that stop me being as productive as I can [i.e. doing as much work as I possibly can in the hours I’m paid for] are reduced, or ideally removed altogether. I can do more in the same time, without reducing the quality of the work I do.
- I’m going to have to make a personal effort to behave and work differently in the future, if these changes are really going to make a difference in practice.