Cllr Kober to give £2 million of our council tax for what?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alison P on January 13, 2014 at 20:47

Well I just googled iMPOWER and got this:

iMPOWER is dedicated to public services and recognises the unique nature of public service transformation. We understand that, fundamentally, we need to work with you to negotiate and navigate to an outcome that is right and fair - an outcome that the people involved and the organisation as a whole will feel proud of. Our people speak your language with your staff, will bring energy and enthusiasm, and are committed to your success. http://www.impower.co.uk/

So this is about public service transformation? But what's the 54,000?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alex on January 13, 2014 at 21:06

Thanks for the link, but having had a look I'm no more reassured.  Fine sounding language but what are the concrete outcomes that will be delivered?  Which services are going to be transformed, how, and as you say - what's the 54,000?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on January 13, 2014 at 21:07

Claire Kober just tweeted at us, pointing this interested to Item 10 here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alex on January 13, 2014 at 22:32

Thanks for the link, have skim read it (don't have time for more) and while it gives some more detail (though no introductory paragraph explaining the 54,000) there still seems to be a dangerous assumption that handing £2M to outside consultants is going to deliver a whole host of improvements and savings, with scant detail on the practicalities of how they will achieve this.  If the consultants don't deliver there seems to be a vague threat they won't get an additional £650k but doesn't look like we get our £2M back. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike on January 14, 2014 at 12:49

I agree with your concerns regarding the sketchy nature of what will actually be done Alex.

I have skim read the parts of the relevant document behind Hugh's link which were visible to my browser (sadly several pages of the pdfs were apparently 'unrenderable'' to my s/ware), and I noticed some eye-watering financial benefit claims. eg In Appendix 2, para 2.19, in the minutes relating to the 54,000 programme, the 'Local Model' of service delivery apparently targets £(8.1 to 8.9)m worth of gross re-investment potential over 5 years, whilst the 'Family Model' seeks £(9.16 to 13.17)m gross re-investment over the same period. Unless these benefits are firmly nailed to currently committed budgets (eg capital expenditure on systems, infrastructure, wage bills/headcount) then I suspect that they will be un-spendable in practice, and therefore as much use as a chest full of wooden dollars. 

Incidentally, examination of the customer services transformation program business benefits in item 8 of the council agenda reveals a similarly exciting pile of targeted financial benefits: over four years either £8.43m via a CRM system, or £9.17m via a web system (!). From what I can gather from the rest of the case, these systems would be replacing telephone access to customer services by internet access with a view to saving £1.51m per year on costs, presumably via a reduced wage bill.

As proposed benefits for both projects are apparently rooted in staff reductions, I do hope that there is a consolidation of all the financial savings proposed from the various Haringey Council projects somewhere.

After all it is only possible to sack your employees once to make savings!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 14, 2014 at 13:22

As John Seddon has been showing for years, Mike, sacking your customer services employees or looking for everything to be done online can very easily and quickly drive up costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike on January 14, 2014 at 13:35

Indeed Alan, I met John a few times when I was working and was fully convinced and very impressed!

I have no wish to be cynical, but I have seen several business cases similar to these in industry, in the respect that the proposed enablers are not tightly correlated with the stated benefits, and therefore realisation is dubious. In these austere times I feel that it is vital that we get real financial benefits if that is what the consultants are promising. Also that any dis-benefits are clearly evaluated and stated (eg replacing a human being on the phone by a web url is not like-for-like)

Do you know if Haringey consolidates and tracks projects' benefits & associated enablers - eg as part of eg a 3-5 year staff resourcing and budget plan ? If not there is a real risk of double-counting project benefits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 14, 2014 at 12:56

Alex, I'm unclear what you're objecting to.

Is it the terms of the contract with Impower Consulting Ltd?  Or the fact that it's being approved by the Dear Leader alone?  Do you have information about this contractor that concerns you; in which case what in particular?  Has someone else raised this with you and you feel you have to mention it?

Do you have a professional background in Children & Young People's Services - the area concerned?

I assume something serious and substantial prompted your posting.  It can't be just the silly way Impower spell their name with a lowercase 'i'.  (Presumably to give themselves a hi-tech buzzy image?)

I've long suspected the 54,000 project is part of a longer-term privatisation programme by our local red-rosetted Tories.  But I have to admit that is purely suspicion and speculation.  So if you have any facts please let us all know.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. Labour Party member)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alex on January 14, 2014 at 20:01

I've got no inside knowledge sorry.  My first post was a question.  Yes I am alarmed by decisions being taken by a single person when they are for large amounts of our money or may affect lots of people.  When I read the papers for the meeting they appeared to be gobbledygook, which was even more alarming. 

While the link provided by Hugh does give more background information, the promises of savings seem to have little information on the practicalities of how they will achieve this.  I'm very bothered by the fashion for seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the claims of outside consultants that they will deliver services better and cheaper.  Apart from anything else redundancy costs are not cheap, and when you add that to the consultants fees, and then the fees for hiring new staff with slightly different job descriptions, I doubt we are getting value for money.

• ▶ Reply