Title

The subject of sharing services is so old it has become a cliché. Yet, paradoxically, the number of successful shared services is still small. A recent debate looked at why so many have failed. Michael Burton reports. The drive for efficiencies is important, but any review of current services should also provide an opportunity to reflect on whether councils are meeting the changing needs of customers. The question is, if shared services are not getting off the ground voluntarily, will central government simply insist they take place? A recent debate attended by council officers and members, and organised by recruitment specialist, Tribal, with myself chairing looked at why so many shared-service partnerships have failed. At least two of the participants had been involved in failed ventures. One said: ‘When I conduct a presentation to members now, I have a slide saying, "missed opportunity."' v One council chief executive talked of a waste-management network made up of the county and districts which failed. ‘We needed political and managerial buy-in. The problem was, every council wanted to be the lead. ‘We estimated to save £350,000 for each council a year, but the project collapsed because they wouldn't share all the savings, and there were also fears about a loss of identity and sovereignty.' Another, talking of his failed partnership, said: ‘The business case reckoned we could make 10% savings. The mistake was not to get staff buy-in. ‘When we went to market for a joint venture, we were down to two bidders who could offer 15% savings or £80m over the course of the contract – then three partners dropped out.' What were the lessons? ‘The economy changed the business case. There was concern about off-shoring, and too much loading on the client side, but it would have transformed the position of the districts. In hindsight, we should have realised the partners didn't want to do it.' Another officer, commenting on the lack of will, added: ‘Authorities which say they're not convinced rarely pursue shared services. The business case is not the only reason for pursuing it. You need commitment.' Cultural obstacles were regularly cited. One comment was: ‘Officers can be a barrier as they want to protect their jobs. We also have permafrost in our organisations.' And another said: ‘We are brought up in organisations which are risk-averse. In our own psyche, we fear it won't work. It takes a leap of faith. It's a huge mental leap for officers and cultural change needs to happen.' Yet another said: ‘We can't think organisationally or we limit thinking. Do citizens care? No.' Another view: ‘There is far too much defensiveness in local government.' One participant added: ‘We need a public service employment contract.' One council leader involved in a successful partnership said it was important to enter with the right attitude. ‘I can understand the political psyche when dealing with shared services. Certain people want to get their hands on power, and the last thing they're interested in is diluting that power.' In his particular case, his council actually stood to gain least from the venture. He said officers at first ‘didn't like giving up their empires', as they'd ‘all been bitten by promises of savings made by consultants from combining services.' Overall, the view was that if savings do not happen they will be forced. One participant said: ‘We should have a grown-up debate within ourselves about how we can save money, and ask ourselves where we can go next.' And another concluded: ‘We can't ignore this anymore – it may be forced by legislation.'

Title

WHITEHALL

Will sharing services become a statutory duty?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING