Developing BPI capability in Local Government

1

• Developing BPI capability in Local Government
• Nicky.jackman_at_communities.gsi.gov.uk

2
all those imperatives one common driver
White Paper Strong Prosperous Communities
Competition contestability
expanding choice
Channel development (Varney)
national/ regional/local arrangements to align
with different customer need.
Transformational Gov
public services reform
local engagement
CSR07
customers, customers, customers .and all they
really care about are outcomes!
Health White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our
Say Every Child Matters Every Tenant
Matters Supporting People- Independence
Opportunity Closer to People and Places (LGA)

Frontline staff are there to deliver services to
the user .productive time can be reduced if
people are having to spend too much time
servicing the organisation rather than their
customers.
Sir Peter Gershon
3
The public spending round (CSR07) literally
asked the million dollar question..
.could there be waste () in our systems
processes?
Are we spending more because we are doing more
for our customers? or just less efficient?

• Over production
• Waiting time/delays
• Transportation
• Unnecessary motion
• Unnecessary inventory ( inc. data)
• Inappropriate process (practice procedure)
• Defects corrections (rework).

The CSR has now quantified this as typically
worth at least 3 of public expenditure for each
year of the 3 year public spending period up to
2010/11.
() the 7 signs of waste (from Japanese quality
(LEAN production) systems
4
VFM, citizen-centric service delivery
..doing/ spending more on things that (local)
customers want by doing/spending less on the
things they dont care about (the waste as
customers would see it) !
A wider adoption by local authorities of good
practice BPI (service redesign) methodology is a
cost-effective option for ensuring that a
consistent customer and community perspective
is taken to the design of the processes that
will help significantly in achieving an overall
3 per annum target for cashable efficiencies.
5
many authorities seemed to agree

• RSE survey last year of LAs in England 48
  respondents
• BPI is considered to be a vital tool in
  supporting service improvement
• 80 of LA respondents think BPI is critical to
  the modernisation of public services
• Almost 90 believe their BPI projects to date
  have been successful
• Over 70 of projects have generated cashable
  efficiency gains
• Authorities anticipate an even greater role for
  BPI in delivering more ambitious change in future
• - 90 of respondents expect to be doing more BPI
  projects in the future
• - There will be a switch from authorities using
  BPI to deliver incremental improvements to
  supporting more extensive transformation.

Also about 150 authorities been along now to NPIP
bpi user group and associated workshops
6
but some potential for improvement

• Measurement
• Base-lining, often poor measurement of
  financial benefits and low evidence of
  realisation
• Further guidance and support needed
• More best practice case studies better
  tools/techniques (consistent methods
  standards)
• Plus
• Lack of in-house capability and capacity
• Many calls for development of change
  capabilities
• Big reliance on expensive external consultants
• In-house teams/managers often lacking practical
  change capability.

Process of sifting through almost 500 actions
that had been taken to improve efficiency during
SR2004 found no shortage of impressive business
improvement happening across the local government
community
7

• Future, sustainable bpi
• research indicated a need to address
  inter-related issues

Is BPI worth doing?
Starting points of different councils?
2. What bpi is already happening in the
community, what is it achieving
1. Identifying whether which elements of local
service delivery might benefit most from an
investment in bpi
whats preventing greater/faster progress
The capability for continuous Improvement?
Need for consistent base-lining measurement
3. How to compare contrast e.g. before after
BPI LA to LA differences
4. The type level of investment needed to
implement ensure improvement is sustained
8

• overall a compelling case
• for a national (organised) approach to
  developing consistent approach to bpi (service
  redesign methodology) for councils who are
  needing to transform services
• for strengthening capability to make it
  happen!

(since endorsed in White Paper)
we will further support effective use of BPI
techniques through a project() we are carrying
out in partnership with local government. We
will ensure that the lessons learnt from this
project are fully shared across local government,
as part of an integrated package of improvement
also covering technology and collaboration a
Business Improvement Package.
Strong and prosperous communities
The Local Government White Paper
Chapter 7
9
BPI pathfinders set up involving around 20
councils
Work tailored for District councils.
Public protection
Waste management
Infrastructure (highways transport)
Business support (corporate) processes (. HR,
Finance)
Housing management
Revs and bens
Adult social care
Childrens services
3 projects running across 9 London authorities
looking at social care processes (1 in child
protection, 2 in adult care processes for common
assessment joint commissioning of
housing-related support)
Group of 14 authorities in the North West
GMEP/NWEGG
Cambridgeshire CC project to cost shared
services approach e.g. with other County in
other region.
LB of Lewisham (Plus NPIP project admin.)
Chorley process architecture/ organisational
blueprint for district councils.
Sedgefield Borough Council
Different ambitions for service improvement but
common deliverables from each
10
Each pathfinder project had different
ambitions All have now completed the process
analysis aspects of the improvement journey
How ambitious are we for our customers?
NPIP pathfinders are around here now
Understand /capture current state (as is)
Vision for positive change a better result
being delivered for an internal and/or external
customer.
Do Gap/ Change Analysis
Plan and implement Change Programme
Create/ design Better state (to be)
11
The top level findings

• 4 areas
• resources
• customers
• operations
• people

(coincidentally a balanced scorecard!)
Meeting the CSR07 efficiency challenge
Improving customer focus
And, by involving frontline staff, achieve
positive culture change/development of people
Developing shared services approach
12
BPI Resources

• Across the 11 GMEP (Greater Manchester
  e-Government Partnership) projects, the total
  efficiency savings identified are likely to
  provide in the region of a 101 to 151 return on
  investment on the cost of carrying out the BPI
  exercise
• London Councils identified that, through BPI, the
  three London Boroughs reviewed could save 5-17
  of staff time from removing non-value adding
  costs from the child protection process from
  assessment to referral
• Furthermore, they identified savings of between
  700k-900k from implementing shared processes
  between authorities in the commissioning of home
  care and related support
• A north-east district identified savings of
  around 17 from moving waste management customer
  services on to the web

13
BPI Customer Focus

• Pathfinders identified ways of improving service
  provision through BPI by reducing assessment
  process times in Revenues and Benefits, by
  improving the quality of highways by increasing
  staff time spent on the cyclical inspection
  process through mobile working
• Additionally, pathfinders noted that staff became
  more customer focussed as a result of BPI
  workshops, as they took time out of the day job
  to map and cost the customers perspective of
  their service. (Asking which activities add value
  for our customers, and what are we doing that is
  more about sustaining systems preferences)
• Chorley used a BPI approach to develop am
  orgnisational blueprint for a customer-focussed
  district council, complete with restructuring
  around Customer Champions for key client groups

14
BPI operations
Pathfinders found that BPI was a particularly
useful tool for considering how services could be
provided across organisational boundaries

• London Councils used BPI to assess the potential
  for shared processes/common practice both within
  individual boroughs, and with other agencies
  across boundaries
• BPI helped to identify common processes between
  areas and therefore where processes could be
  shared
• Cambridgeshire are in the process of using BPI to
  redesign corporate services (such as HRM and
  finance) in order to provide them to another
  County as a revenue opportunity
• GMEP authorities used their BPI projects to
  progress their shared services work in Public
  Protection and Revenues Benefits
• The Chorley district blueprint involved using BPI
  techniques to stand back and identify where
  overlaps suggested shared services are possible

15
BPI people
NPIP pathfinders also investigated how their BPI
exercises affected their staff. On the whole
staff found the process very positive.
Weve never been asked for our opinion
before Front-line officer in BPI workshop

• Pathfinders reported that staff found the
  networking opportunities presented by BPI mapping
  costing workshops to be very helpful
• These opportunities may be even greater when BPI
  workshops are run with staff from benchmark
  authorities
• Pathfinder staff found that BPI interviews and
  workshops gave them useful opportunities to stand
  back from their day jobs, voice concerns and come
  up with improvement ideas
• As many of the BPI initiatives were in potential
  sensitive areas, the pathfinders that engaged
  staff as early as possible in the process found
  more success in reducing perceived resistance to
  change. In fact, frontline staff clearly knew
  how the service needed to improve for users.

Additional work commissioned by the Health
Safety Executive will examine in more detail the
effects of BPI on the staff involved
16
Other findings E.g. Child protection BPI
pathfinder - the high level, (statutory) process
looks like this
15 days from strategy discussion
35 days from strategy discussion
Referral
7 days
1 day
Strategy discussion
Child Protection Conference
Initial enquiry
Initial assessment
Core assessment
This stage often extends beyond the Child
Protection Conference
Extensive overlap between S47 enquiry and core
assessment
17
Cost allocation Borough 1
But the costs (by proportion) varied considerably
across the main stages e.g.
Core assessment takes significant extra effort
The Child Protection Conference is a major area
of expenditure
18
Cost allocation Borough 2
The initial assessment constitutes a large amount
of the process in Borough 2
As with Borough 1, a large amount of time is
spent on the initial CP conference
The S47 is closely linked to the core assessment,
hence the small cost
19
Cost allocation Borough 3
Core assessment closely linked to S47 work, so
generates little extra cost
A relatively large amount of effort goes into
dealing with referrals, immediate action, and
initial assessment includes significant
management input
Smooth processes mean conference costs account
for a smaller proportion of overall costs than
other boroughs
20
(indicates areas/priorities for improvement
action ? benchmarking)
NPIP child protection example - waste at each
stage as of cost varied too
Borough 1 Borough 2 Borough 3
waste
21
What next
The experiences of the NPIP pathfinders has
enabled the development of advice for Local
Authorities on how to get the most out of BPI

• A set of bpi learning modules is now available
• Using BPI to meet organisational aims
• Putting BPI techniques into practice
• Comparing the costs of services
• Resourcing BPI
• Making BPI-led change a success
• Planning for full benefits realisation

All NPIP learning is available on the Business
Improvement Package www.bip.rcoe.gov.uk