APPENDIX D
EFQM
and
EXTERNAL CHALLENGE
FEEDBACK
LEADERSHIP
STRENGTHS

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
RESOURCES ROLE

RECOGNITION IN NEED TO CHANGE

RECOGNITION OF SLA GROUP OF NEED FOR
VISION FOR TRADING


SLA GROUP – ACCEPTANCE OF NEED TO
CHANGE
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
CREATION
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRADED SERVICES

UNCLEAR WHAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING
EXISTS AMONG MEMBERS FOR NEED TO CHANGE

SLA GROUP CONCERNED RE LACK OF VISION

GOVERNMENT PRESSURE ON LEAs TO CHANGE
?REAL SCRUTINY

LACK OF DIRECTORATE VISION FOR
TRADING
POLICY & STRATEGY
STRENGTHS

SLA CONTRACT PERIOD FOR ACADEMIC YEAR

SERVICE PLAN - SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE TO
IMPROVE IN THIS AREA
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

LACK OF CORPORATE STRATEGY FOR TRADING

LACK OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

NO PLANS/STRATEGIES

POOR/INCONSISTENT OPERATIONAL PLANS

LEA & CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
NEEDS DEVELOPING

NEED TO IDENTIFY OTHER SERVICES TO BE
DELEGATED – INVOLVE IN SLA GROUP

GREATER APPRECIATION NEEDED OF PUBLIC
SERVICE ETHOS

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEA & TRADING SERVICES

STRATEGY FOR COPING WITH A DIMINISHING
MARKET (PRIMARY SCHOOL REDUCTION)
PEOPLE
STRENGTHS

COMMITMENT TO STAFF RETENTION

SLA GROUP – GOOD ‘VEHICLE’ FOR
COMMUNICATION

FAIR EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

APPRAISAL SYSTEMS GOOD IN PLACES TO
INDENTIFY OBJECTIVES ON SOME AREAS
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

LACK OF SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

NO ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR CUSTOMER
CONTACT ROLES

MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH REQUIRED FOR
STAFF RETENTION

SLA GROUP NEEDS TO BE EMPOWERED

FLEXIBLE APPROACH TO METHODS OF WORKING

LACK OF INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES
PARTNERSHIPS & RESOURCES
STRENGTHS

EXPANDED MEMEBRSHIP OF SLA GROUP TO
INCLUDE THEME SERVICES?

SLA GROUP CREATES GREATER AWARENESS
OF ISSUES – WORKING TOGETHER
ENHANCED?

WINDSOR GROUP – POTENTIAL TO CREATE
PARTNERSHIPS

MOVE TO SINGLE SITE – IMPROVED
SERVICES TO SCHOOLS (CO-ORDINATION)

SOME EXPLORATION OF TECHNOLOGY (E.G.
FLARE SYSTEM)
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

LACK OF CLEAR STRATEGY PREVENTS IN-DEPTH
LOOK AT PARTNERSHIPS

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS NEED IMPROVING


POOR IN GATHERING INFO RE: PARTNERSHIPS,
COMPETITORS, PERFORMANCE
CURRENTLY LACKING IN THIS AREA
PROCESSES
STRENGTHS






SLA PROCESS IN PLACE
(SLA GROUP)
(SERVICES TO SCHOOLS GROUP)
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

DISEMINATION OF SLA LEARNING TO OTHER
SERVICES (SEN)

Q.A. PROCESSES LACKING

NO FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR ‘SOME’ TRADING
UNITS – NEED REGULAR TRADING INFORMATION

AD-HOC PURCHASE OF IT EQUIPMENT

COMMUNICATION (COMPLAINTS HANDLING)
POOR

SLAs NEED IMPROVING
COMMITMENT TO DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS
WITH
CUSTOMERS

AD-HOC SURVEYS BY SERVICES

NEED TO OPEN UP TO EXTERNAL MARKET
MARKETING ACTION PLAN IN PLACE TO
MARKET SERVICES

NOT PROVIDING INFO TO ENABLE SCHOOLS TO
MAKE DECISIONS RE CONTRACT PERIOD

NEED CUSTOMER CONTACT METHODS SPECIFIC
TO THE CUSTOMER

LACK OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT
SLA SURVEY UNDERTAKEN
SLA ROADSHOW/TRADE FAIR
SLA CONTRACT PROCESS –
LONGER PERIODS AVAILABLE
-
OFTEN REACTIVE
LACK OF RE-INVESTMENT

CORPORATE INITIATIVES – IMPACT ADVERSELY ON
SCHOOLS/SERVICES (SAP SYSTEM)

SAP – ALLOCATION OF KNOCK ON SAVINGS TO
SCHOOLS
CUSTOMER RESULTS
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT
STRENGTHS

HAVE RESULTS OF THE SLA SURVEY

LEA – LACK OF RECOGNITION OF ROLE AS A
CUSTOMER OF TRADING SERVICES – USE OF
INFORMATION

HEAD TEACHERS CLEAR IN THEIR
PERCEPTIONS

LACK OF DATA RE: COMPLAINTS/PROCEDURE
-

NETWORK FEEDBACK
SLA TAKE UP
PRIMARY HEADS LOYALTY
-
SURVEYS/TAKE-UP
PEOPLE RESULTS
RESULTS
STRENGTHS
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

NO RECENT & REGULAR RESULTS INFORMATION
ACROSS THE THEME

NEED TO UNDERTAKE A SURVEY
SOCIETY RESULTS
STRENGTHS
NOT APPLICABLE
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT
NOT APPLICABLE
KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS
STRENGTHS

GOOD OUTCOME MEASURES AT SERVICE
LEVEL BUT NOT
CO-ORDINATED ACROSS THEME
AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

STAREGY UNCLEAR RE: FUTURE PERFORMANCE
THEREFORE NO PERFORMANCE RESULTS

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THEME UNCLEAR

NO FINANCIAL MEASUREMENT ACROSS THE
THEME RE: SURPLUS/DEFICIT
EXTERNAL CHALLENGE FROM BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN LEA
(ANTHONY MUGAN)
1.
EVIDENCE ANALYSIS SESSION
‘Consultation: has been thorough in relation to primary schools, management and elected
members. The review team is currently following up consultation with Secondary Heads.
The Review Team may wish to consider consultation with frontline staff.
Compare: There is an undeniable practical difficulty in identifying benchmarking
information for traded services, particularly at thematic level, due to the diversity of
structures that exist and the lack of national performance standards for these areas. The
Review Team may wish to consider the practicality of using team specific data that may be
available in some cases, e.g. SIMS support teams etc. It is recognised that significant
differences in structures between organisations will still be problematic for this area.
Compete: This is linked both to comparative costs, where these might be obtainable and to
the degree to which a mature market for services exists (if the latter can be said to be a
case then market forces and resulting levels of buy-back would be reasonable indicators of
competitiveness). The Review Team has appropriately identified the LEA’s client/
brokerage capacity as a key area.
Challenge: at this stage (prior to the development of options) it would be inappropriate to
consider this area in too much depth. It does appear that the Review Team is developing a
thorough Challenge to the Review Area at this stage. The Review Team may wish to
consider the ‘counter-argument’ to their proposed challenge’.
One additional area the Review Team may wish to consider is the capacity of the
organisation to improve over the coming five years.’
2.
OPTIONS – DEVELOPMENT SESSION
In essence I felt the session was a very thorough and wide-ranging examination of the
issues emerging from the perception of service users, service issues, and the broader policy
context. I also felt that you had a sensible process for bringing the review to a conclusion,
which should ensure ownership by senior management.
I would find it difficult to add any significant challenge to the process as I felt the pros and
cons of the options were assessed rigorously and the range of options considered was
thorough – with an appropriately strategic focus balanced by some specific operational
recommendations.
Perhaps Neil’s (QCSU Link Officer) point about formally discussing the status quo as an
explicit option might be worth considering – I agree it will emerge fairly straight forwardly
as a non starter but it might be worth explaining why this is so. Again we still need to get
the view of a group of Secondary Heads – although you’ve obviously got this in hand.’