Innovating for Improved Productivity
are we measuring the wrong thing?
Robert Arnott
Home Office
Why innovate?
Health
Education
Police
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
"Professional Staff"
Pensions
Premises
Supplies and other services
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
"Support Staff"
Other employee costs
Transoport
Other costs
100%
What have we learned?
98% MG11
not required
to be typed
Typing resource
occupied with
typing MG11
and ROTIs
70% ROTIs
not required
to prove a case
74%
CMR documents
missing
or incomplete
Police over
build files
11 day
typing
backlog
Cannot get
documents
typed in time
File allocation
process to CPO
not robust
A little about tools
Can take 6 days
for a a file to
reach a CPO
Only 37%
witnesses
communicated with
in the way they
specified
20% due to
failure to
communicate
Files not ready
Do not have
a robust
planning
process
70% trials
crack or are
ineffective
40% of
witnesses will
not show up or
give evidence
Justice is done
and seen
to be done
Their delegated
powers are not
enforced
Incorrect or
insufficient
file build
Too many
disproportionate
disposals
A lot about culture
68% of files miss
the deadline to
CPS by more
than 7 days
10%
CPS not
ready
Files physically
transported
around
ERO / CPS
link to provide
advice not
strong enough
When things
change the court
Is not informed
63% witnesses
warned to court and
not required to give
evidence
Listings team
undertaking
other
responsibilities
Difficulties
in listing
Court utilisation
64%
5.5 month
backlog
(2000 trials)
Trying to plan in
an environment
of high
uncertainty
20,000 people per
annum (70%) warned
and de-warned by
WCU for section 51
30,000 case hearings
generated per year
because we hold 5.6
hearings per trial
3,400 police officers
called to court annually
but not required to
give evidence
What has innovation done for the public?
MINIMISE the time it takes to investigate
crime
CUT custody waiting times
Time betw een allocation and finalisation
30
‘Airlock’ time (minutes)
60
56
52
50
47
45
REDUCE incident desk queue volumes
45
38
30
£1.6m
savings
10
140
120
3
0
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
W/c
13/4
4
3
W/c
20/4
W/c
27/4
4
Queue volume
20
W/c
4/5
100
80
20
15
11minutes Target
10
5
0
September
£1.37m
savings
40
27minutes Baseline
£139k
savings
25
77% average reduction
in local queues
60
20
October
November December
January
February
Percentage within target
90
Day 25
Day 31
Day 22
Day 28
Day 19
Day 16
Day 7
Day 13
Day 4
Day 10
Go live
Baseline
Baseline
£3.25m
savings
95
Baseline
100
Baseline
Baseline
0
DELIVER sustainable results
BEAT intelligence report backlogs
Days
3 year sustained
improvement of %
Grade 2 calls in
target
85
80
75
70
Nov-05
May-06
Nov-06
May-07
Nov-07
May-
Nov-08
LOWER the volume of failed bails
2,000
1,000
40
May-09
34
0
£1.46m
savings
30/03
Baseline
06/04
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Go live weeks
7
6
3
IMPROVE the identification of vulnerability
13/04
20/04
SAVE officer time to CUT costs
27/04
Post Go-live
Officer time savings (hours)
£££££ savings
84%
ACHIEVE attendance target times
44%
£1,535k
savings
60
29%
13%
Number of incidents where Number of incidents where
vulnerability was identified officer noted on FWIN that
by response officer
action in relation to
vulnerability was taken
Attendence tim e (m inutes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
£557k
savings
3,000
May ‘09
60
10
minutes
faster!
55
50
£1.390k
savings
35
Pending Events
5
Week 4
Week 2
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0
Week 4
Week 5
50%
£3,364k
savings
Events Reported
240
900
220
800
200
700
180
160
600
140
500
120
400
100
80
300
60
200
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bristol East
Bristol South
Bristol BCU
Baseline (April'07 - Oct'07)
Pilot (Nov'07 - Jan'08)
15/03/2009
17/03/2009
19/03/2009
21/03/2009
23/03/2009
25/03/2009
27/03/2009
29/03/2009
31/03/2009
02/04/2009
04/04/2009
06/04/2009
08/04/2009
10/04/2009
12/04/2009
14/04/2009
16/04/2009
18/04/2009
20/04/2009
22/04/2009
24/04/2009
26/04/2009
28/04/2009
Go-live average 3
£1,212k
savings
Number of Pending Events
20
10
Week 2
Pending Events Vs Reported Events (Daily)
Baseline average 23
15
Week 3
Week 1
Dec' 07
DECREASE pending events
30
25
IMPROVE detection rates for ABH
Number of Events reported
35
Nov' 07
Time period
82% reduction in SNT
crime allocation time in
just one week
40
Oct' 07
Sept' 07
30
STREAMLINE the allocation of crime
“The approach has been very
successful and the best I have
experienced in over 25 years policing.”
-Deputy Chief Constable of a County Force
45
40
“One of the most profound outcomes
of [this work] has been the personal
and professional development of staff
from the force … the legacy is in the
learning of the people who have been
involved”.
-Chief Constable of a very large force
4,000
55
50
May-
5,699 IR Baseline
6,000
5,000
65
May ‘05
Baseline
Days
40
OPERATION QUEST
What has innovation done for us? – better benchmarks …
•
There is no framework to evaluate Intelligence Reports and produce uniformity
throughout the different intelligence sections.
•
Non standardised roles and processes across intelligence units resulting in low
productivity and lack of accountability.
•
Officers are not trained to recognise what constitutes relevant intelligence.
•
A backlog of intelligence builds up within all area intelligence units and the force
intelligence section meaning that IRs take over 3 months to process (Force A).
This prevents officers from accessing intelligence placed on the system and
creates considerable risks to the force.
Metric Name
Metrics
Typical Issues
Definition
Aim
%age of intelligence submitted
deemed to be “relevant” judged
against specified criteria
Increase
(a drop in the rate
of incorrect
intelligence
submissions of
200 a week)
Number of backlogged
intelligence submissions
Amount of intelligence awaiting
processing
Decrease
(by 48.5% in Force
A, from 5700 to
under 3000 in the
1st six weeks, to
nearly 0 is six
months)
Quantity
deleted
of
intelligence
Number of intelligence reports
deemed to be of no relevance
and deleted
Decrease
Quantity
returned
of
intelligence
Number of intelligence reports
returned due to inaccuracy
Decrease
Quantity
of
processed
intelligence
Number of intelligence reports
processed by staff
Increase
(by 104% in Force
A)
Aggregate number of errors in a
specified dip sample of call
handler
intelligence
submissions
Total backlogged IRs
Decrease
(10% in Wiltshire
from 10.8% to
0.8%)
Relevance
submitted
of
intelligence
Typical QUEST actions
•
•
•
Implement force wide relevance framework.
Train officers in what relevant intelligence is and how to use the
Intelligence recording system effectively.
Develop and implement monitoring processes and system of
accountability for officers in line with intelligence requirements.
Remove inefficient processes and improve performance to ensure all
intelligence reports that are relevant are processed in a reasonable time
Train call handlers in the submission of intelligence reports and provided
tools and supporting material to sustain that training.
Example Benefits
Force A
£192k officer and intelligence staff time savings from reduced time submitting
and processing poor quality and irrelevant intelligence reports. This equates to
nearly 69 officer hours a week
Implementation of the new roles and ways of working within the intelligence
units has increased productivity by over 100%. Allowing the units to be
centralised in the future. 11.1 posts were offset by the creation of 5 new posts
enabling total savings of £291k to be realised (£222k cashable).
Number
of errors in call
Performance
data
handlers Intelligence
submissions (dip sample)
Total backlog of IRs broken dow n by location
Kings Lynn backlog
6000
Kings Lynn proportion of backlog
Norwich backlog
5000
Norwich proportion of backlog
Great Yarm outh backlog
4000
Great Yarm outh proportion of backlog
FIB Backlog
IRs
•
•
FIB proportion of backlog
3000
2000
1000
15
/0
3/
20
09
26
/1
2/
20
08
08
/1
0/
20
08
0
21
/0
7/
20
08
Force B
Error rates in the submission of intelligence by call handlers had dropped by
half post QUEST resulting in much quicker appearance on system. The
improved management and mitigation of risk equated to about 3.6 FTEs
QUEST interventions
in Force A reduced
the
backlog
of
intelligence reports to
be processed from
nearly 6000 to 400
within 6 months
… and to inform national policy-making
Three factors have a large proportionate bearing on the level of savings achieved in each force:
1.
The scale and size of the force
2.
The scope of the work undertaken
3.
The level of force commitment
D
Anticipated figure based on
savings achieved in 1 BCU
and assuming similar
rollout to 9 other BCUs
500
400
1 and 2. The scale and
size of the Force /
scope of the work
undertaken
J
K
F
300
E
C
A
200
B
Small force, lower
commitment
100
0
G
H
3. Level of force
commitment
I
M
5
10
15
20
Return on Investment (multiples) using 3 year NPV of 3%
25
30
But that raises questions
• How do we create the right incentives (incl sustaining posture)?
• How can we drive take-up rate?
• How do we draw focus onto materiality?
• How do we change ways of thinking?
Measuring productivity may be interesting …
… but what else do we need to concentrate on?
- Rigour is about being very clear in defining objectives, creating single-point accountability,
using numbers to describe reality truthfully and not being constrained by the status quo or
organisational politics in seeking out solutions;
- Discipline is about sticking to the numbers, not being distracted, seeing things through,
following what the evidence says and managing the consequences properly, every single day, for
ever;
-Emotional intelligence is about recognising that motivation and discretionary effort flow from
how people feel, not what they are told, what is written down in objectives or how much they are
paid. In general, people want (i) to do a good job, (ii) to understand and have a role in shaping
how their own work contributes to the overall effort, and (iii) to love their work. That means
there is significant value in concentrating, with rigour and discipline, on nurturing a constructive
environment of warmth and employee engagement.
Source: Recent advice to the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office
Rigour, discipline and emotional intelligence
are the key foundations of a VfM culture