Effectiveness of Interim Management Supply Models

Where next?

After the lull of the holiday season the Interim Management community has shown renewed interest in subject of "Catch 22" - the Cabinet Office's constraints on public sector deployment of Interim Managers. A discussion thread has restarted in the Odgers Interim Management Group on LinkedIn.

The discussion had turned negative and a new direction, leading to some positive action, was called for. Because this is a closed Group, I thought it would be appropriate to reproduce my comment, which (with minor editing) was as follows.

This [Odgers Interim Management] discussion thread started on 3rd June. Alf Oldman and I had a meeting with the Cabinet Office on 1 July at which we were informed of plans to introduce new framework agreements to cover consultancy and executive interim requirements. We were not bound by non-disclosure agreement; it is more out of regard for our professional integrity that we have not broadcast plans that the Cabinet Office has chosen not to announce formally. It might be helpful, to take the debate forward in a constructive manner, to disclose some of what we know.

The meeting dispelled a few myths surrounding "Catch 22".

The Cabinet Office constraints on the use of 'consultants' applied to Central Government only. The use of consultants and interims by local authorities has been affected by budgetary constraints, not (as far as I am aware) by Central Government directive.

William Jordan, former head of OGC, mandated that Central Government departments choose from 3 pre-existing models:

   1. DWP Cipher - the outsourced Capita supply model;

   2. Internal Buying Hub (CIX)/Home Office portal to Buying Solutions' frameworks.

   3. ANY OTHER OPTION OFFERING EQUIVALENT VALUE.

The mandate required that any exceptions valued at more than £20k (but less than the £100k threshold requirement for tendering via OJEU) be supported by a business case approved by the department head, and the Cabinet Office notified. I am not clear it was mandated that the Cabinet Office would have to approve such business cases. Besides, the freedom to use "any other option" gives enormous scope, especially in light of the Public Accounts Committee's findings that the Cabinet Office is incapable of assessing value.

Cabinet Office (and formerly Buying Solutions') frameworks - of which there are currently 19 active - have never been mandated, and neither will they be. That the Cabinet Office should be seen to prevent Central Government departments, or local authorities, from discharging their responsibilities is clearly unwise both politically and in terms of maintaining managerial accountability.

The proposed new frameworks are to fall within two distinct categories: (1) contingent labour; (2) consultancy, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE INTERIM.

Executive interim will not be classified as contingent labour, but 'handle-turning' contractors' roles will be. I feel it is inappropriate to comment on the dividing line in terms of day rates but it was clear to me that many existing public sector 'interims' will fall into the contingent labour category, including those working at rates above recognised as lower-limit thresholds by the two professional bodies, API and IIM. This is to be welcomed. If the Cabinet Office delivers what Alf and I were told is planned, then the recognition of executive interim status and the crossover with, and alternative to, big consultancy will be addressed.

My focus since the meeting has been on the interim management supply model. The success of any new frameworks is entirely dependent on the outcome of the tendering process. The critical factors are (a) Cabinet Office recognition that best value does not equate to lowest Interim Service Provider's ("ISP") margin, and (b) ISP's placing bids that demonstrate, can deliver, and can measure the added value of a higher-margin service.

The Cabinet Office is fully aware of the need to evaluate different interim management supply models. To this end Alf and I produced a second White Paper which we have not published (in the public domain). Much of the content regarding measuring the effectiveness of interim management supply models has been put to the IM community for discussion, both before and after we submitted the White Paper to the Cabinet Office. Details can be found in my earlier blog.

I also started discussions in the most active ISP's own Groups - including a discussion at Odgers Interim LI Group - to ensure that ISPs as well as the broader Interim community were aware of the need to develop innovative models . Disappointingly, these attracted only moderate interest and little comment from the ISPs themselves.

Alf and I know from private discussions we had with various ISPs that more is going on behind the scenes than is apparent in the public domain. I would expect some reticence to discuss publically what ISPs might be doing to establish their own positions and place their bids. The future of the executive interim opportunity in Central Government departments is at stake. So perhaps this discussion should be redirected towards ensuring that ISPs provide the type of interim supply model that we executive interims would wish.

Non-members of the Odgers Interim Management Group can join the discussion "Effectiveness of Interim Management Supply Models – Where Next?" at API (open) Group on LinkedIn

Change Management: 7 Essential Elements of Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement is a critical factor in the success of business change, especially business transformations, which may require significant cultural change. Business transformation typically involves people, process and systems changes which need to be delivered in order to produce a step change within the business. The design of effective processes and application of appropriate technology is not enough to ensure success. Insufficient acceptance and adoption of the new processes, arising from inadequate engagement of stakeholders, is a common cause of transformation failures.

The same is true for public sector transformation, whether internally within public and civil organisations or in pursuit of broader civil and social reforms.

Much of the published literature on stakeholder engagement deals with the introduction of sustainable engagement programmes in public, private and civil society organisations - with strong emphasis on accountability, particularly democratic accountability - and is applicable to the integration of stakeholder engagement with corporate governance, strategy and operations. Readers who are interested in this context might consult The AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard.

This article is directed at the tactical application of stakeholder engagement within a specific project or programme - a pragmatic approach to getting stakeholders on board, and ensuring the desired outcomes are achieved.

The overall aim of the engagement process is to achieve the desired outcomes. The desired outcomes should, therefore, always be at the forefront of planning an engagement process. They need to be clearly stated - setting out exactly what is sought from the proposed changes in process, technology, etc. The delivery of the technology, the process and the process outputs themselves are not the main focus, which must be on the achievement of the outcomes. This enables some latitude in determining how the outcomes are achieved - what technology, process and process outputs are used - so that stakeholders have a sense of purpose.

To engage stakeholders fully there are 7 areas we address. It is important to note that these are not sequential steps, although the emphasis moves, with the passage of time, from the lower to the higher-numbered items in the following list :

1.  Sponsorship:  Ensuring sponsorship for the change - in business, at a senior executive level from both internal ‘supplier’ and ‘customer’ perspectives - in public life, from institutional heads representing providers and receivers of services. Often, work needs to be done in advance to define the scope and context of the engagement in order to gain commitment to the engagement programme.

2.  Involvement:  Involving the right people in the design and implementation of changes, to make sure the right changes are made - so ensuring their effectiveness. Also that no stakeholder group is inadvertently or intentionally excluded - so ensuring legitimacy. And, at the outset, involving the right people in the design of the engagement plan itself.
Seek active participation. Consultation is good but programmes where the delliverables are 'done to' or 'done for' the stakeholders are less likely to lead to successful outcome than if they are (in part) 'done by' stakeholders.

3.  Impact:  Assessing and addressing how the changes will affect people. 'Sweeping issues under the carpet' is a frequent cause of failure, yet often the issues present an opportunity to increase stakeholder engagement, by getting them to participate in finding or developing solutions.

4.  Communication:  Telling everyone who's affected about the changes... and listening. Early communication the context in which the stakeholder engagement is taking place is important: - for sponsors, a common understanding of context and purpose ensures consistent leadership; - for other stakeholders to align participants, clarify their roles, and ensure the process is responsive to their needs.

5.  Readiness:  Getting people ready for the changes, by ensuring they have the right information, training and help. The timing and resources required are often underestimated but the requirements can be reduced by the planned involvement of key stakeholders.

6.  Responsibilities:  Ensuring people understand and accept their responsibilities, and are held accountable. Unambiguous definition of participants' roles is a pre-requisite.

7.  Compliance:  Addressing resistance; in most cases revisiting 1-6 above, but occasionally requiring the removal of negative influences. Former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell said "The good followers know who the bad followers are, and they are waiting for you to do something about it." I agree. However, the necessity to remove a significant number of negative people usually indicates a failure in design, planning or management. Mass removal of protesters, and their replacement by sycophants, is a recipe for disaster.

This is not an exclusive list. Additional political and organisational issues will need attention, depending on the nature of the changes.

I opened by saying that stakeholder engagement is a critical factor in the success of business change. It seems to have become fashionable to put stakeholder engagement at the pinnacle of the business change agenda - suggesting that change management is purely about stakeholder engagement - as if changing the organisation and improving stakeholder engagement will somehow transform the business. Real business change is not achieved by changing the organisation structure. Effective process is a pre-requisite. W. Edwards Deming said "If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you are doing" (engaged or not). Stakeholder engagement helps the design of good processes, ensures their effective operation, and encourages personal commitments to deliver desired outcomes.

Effectiveness of Interim Management Supply Models

Consultancy and Interim Assignments, “…if you could tell me how to value the outputs that would be fantastic.” Sir Gus O’Donnell

Following on from my last blog, “Effectiveness of Interim Supply Models – The Metrics?” and a recent invitation to apply for an interim assignment with a not-for-profit organisation, I want to explore the valuation of consultancy and interim assignment outputs. The link between my blog and the invitation is the critical significance of the brief or Statement of Requirements (“SoR”). I have concerns over the absence of references to desired outcomes. My concerns are not specific to public and not-for-profit sectors so, hopefully, my comments will be of interest also to readers from the private sector.

“The Effectiveness of Interim Supply Models” followed a visit to the Cabinet Office with my colleague, Dr Alf Oldman, and numerous conversations we had with fellow interims and interim service providers, and is a precursor to our joint submission to the Cabinet Office. The invitation to the Cabinet Office had come indirectly from the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office & Paymaster General, following receipt of Dr Oldman’s Catch 22 White Paper. Francis Maude replied,

“To ensure value is both improved and sustained, work is currently underway to develop a new strategy to centralize and simplify how Departments buy common types of consultancy and contingent labour.”

Alf Oldman gives his account of the meeting and in his latest blog considers “ Reforming the Professional Interim and Independent Consultant Supply Chain Model?”   I shall pursue a particular perspective, relative to my focus on supply chain management: measuring the delivery.

But, first, it is necessary to explain the context of the meeting, which I shall do by reproducing two paragraphs from Alf Oldman’s blog, in which Alf refers to the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report entitled “Central government’s use of consultants and interims” (“the PAC report”):

“Francis Maude kindly forwarded a copy of my White Paper to the appropriate team at the Cabinet Office and invited me to speak with the official leading the team and this resulted in a very successful meeting last Friday. I was accompanied by Tony Colwell who is a Supply Chain expert.

“I met with Tony ahead of our visit to the Cabinet Office and kicked around our views of the professional interim supply model. This resulted in the schematic entitled the “Professional Interim Community“ which we used as a discussion aid at the Cabinet Office – this contains five archetype models of intermediary. The meeting went very well and we had a good exchange of views and were able to empathize with each others’ perspectives. In passing, the PAC report was mentioned as evidence confirming both the importance and dependence of Central Government on consultants and interims for the foreseeable future. I strongly encourage the reader to take some time and read the PAC report carefully, in particular the evidence provided by Sir Gus O’Donnell (Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service) and Ian Watmore (Chief Operating Officer, Efficiency Reform Group, Cabinet Office).”

Using the terms “consultants” and “consultancy” to cover both consultants and interims, the PAC report states:

“Departments frequently fail to adequately define the service required or negotiate the most advantageous contractual terms, and therefore cannot assess the performance of consultants or whether the work done was of benefit.”

“The Cabinet Office stated that it is difficult to measure the value achieved by consultancy because government can currently only measure the value of the inputs and not the outputs”

In giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Gus O’Donnell (Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service) said, “Look, if you could tell me how to value the outputs that would be fantastic.”

Overall, there are three critical measures of the effectiveness, and value, of the Interim Supply Model:

1. The total cost of procurement (internal and external)
2. The net benefits receivable from the interim’s intervention
3. The composite risk of the intervention

Focusing on the second point, the benefits are in delivered outcomes, not in the activities that are performed. So establishing the desired outcomes is really important. It may be difficult in the case of general contractors (or contingent labour) to resolve, from the desired outcomes of a broader programme, the contributions of individual contractors within the programme team. Consultancy and Professional Interim (“PI”) engagements, however, should be supported by a client business case which summarizes the key outputs, including value creation, that are specific to that particular engagement. Where it is not possible to translate the PI’s benefit case into direct financial measures of outputs, I would expect other clearly defined measured outputs – these outputs should be tracked through the life cycle to demonstrate value added and be available to audit. OGSM methodology (Objective, Goals, Strategies and Measures) provides a simple but powerful framework. The assignment objectives are the desired outcomes.

So why do so many interim assignment briefs focus on the responsibilities of the role and activities that the client wants the interim to perform rather than the outcomes to be achieved? Surely this must reflect a failure in the collaboration of client and intermediary?

The interim’s terms of reference (“ToR”) would normally be derived from the SoR or, after collaboration between client and intermediary, the assignment brief. The interim’s intervention, however, often results in a change in the ToR reflecting deficiencies in the earlier analysis of requirements. The other early deliverable in the PI’s assignment is a plan which defines the deliverables necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. Critically, it is the Professional Interim’s intervention, and expert knowledge, that will challenge the perceived requirements (and perhaps modify the objectives) and determine the activities and deliverables necessary to deliver the desired outcomes.

The Objectives, the interim’s Plan, the planned Deliverables, changes between SoR and final ToR, and the Outcomes, are essential elements of the proposed measures for interim supply model evaluation. For each supply model, the value of the consultants’ or PIs’ interventions can be assessed in four qualitative measures:

   Delivery of outcomes:   % Outcomes not meeting Objectives
   Quality of deliverables:   % Deliverables not meeting Plan quality
   Timing of deliverables:   % Deliverables not meeting Plan timing
   Quality of specification:   Changes, % ToR

Uniform and standardized quantitative measures can be developed for assignment outputs, for example: by expressing (as a percentage) within each assignment, the extent to which:

   - the Objectives have been met by the Outcomes
   - the Deliverables have met Plan quality.

These measures need to be recorded and formally signed off: the Deliverables by client, intermediary and interim at a final pre-closure assignment review; the Outcomes by client and intermediary (the interim having since departed, though many Professional Interims would be keen to return to participate) in a post-closure audit.

Talking to former colleagues in the public sector, who procure substantial numbers of specialist technical advisors and subject matter experts, it became clear that the existing framework agreements for consultancy and contingent labour do not meet their specialist needs. It would seem that clients, interims and the Cabinet Office have a shared interest in connecting demand and supply, and developing an effective evaluation of the various supply models and effective evaluations of individual assignments.

References:
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report entitled “Central government’s use of consultants and interims” dated 14 December 2010
“Utilising Professional Interims to Help Reduce the Budget Deficit - Removing Catch 22” by Dr Alf Oldman

Go to top

Effectiveness of Interim Management Supply Models

The Metrics?

Following on from our campaign to differentiate Professional Interims from Consultants and Contingent Workers, and the removal of "Catch 22" (see References), Dr Alf Oldman and I will be asking, “What should the ideal Professional Interim supply model(s) look like?”

First, one needs to measure the effectiveness of established Interim Management supply models. So, what are the most important subjective and objective metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of supply models over the interim assignment life cycle?

For example, supply models might include intermediaries (e.g. managed service providers, recruiters, search-based providers, specialist providers and one-man bands) collaborative networks and direct. If the various stakeholders are to operate a model it needs to be effective, and the effectiveness examined, from the perspectives of each of the key stakeholders, i.e. clients, intermediaries and interims.

Alf and I have drafted a strawman to be tested by the Interim community, which comprises a life cycle model (Figure 1) and sets of subjective and objective metrics.

(Note – the model includes intermediary. In the case of direct or collaborative supply models the role of the intermediary is split between the client and the interim or collaborators. It is our contention that, substantially, the same metrics will apply.)

Figure 1.

Objective Metrics

Assignment Quality
Deliverables quality                                           % Deliverables not meeting Plan quality
Formal Contract Closure                                   % Assignments not Reviewed/Closed
Overall assignment delivery                             % Outcomes not meeting Objectives
Audit                                                                      % Assignments not audited

Procurement Quality
Effectiveness of screening                                 Number of Submissions per Award
Candidate rejections by client                         % Submissions rejected
Security & Reference failures                           % Awards failing security/reference checks
Post-award performance failure                     % Contracts terminated early
Requirements definition                                    % SoR inconsistent with ToR
Requirements interpretation                            % Briefs inconsistent with ToR
Depth of Intermediary’s talent pool                Number of (potential) Submissions per Invitation
Application success rate                                   Number of  Awards per Application
Interview success rate                                       Number of  Awards per Interview

Assignment Timing
Deliverables late                                                 % Deliverables not meeting Plan timing

Procurement Timing                                                           
Overall procurement timing                             SoR to Interim Start /days
Sourcing response time                                     SoR to first Submission Award /days
Speed of selection                                               First Submission to Award /days
Submission screening time                               First Submission to Short List /days
Interview and decision turnaround                Short List to Award /days
Contract turnaraound                                        Award to Contract  /days
Security Clearance turnaround                        Award to Clearance  /days

Interim payment terms                      
                                                                                Interim payments average days late
                                                                                % Interim payments overdue
                                                                                % Interim fees in dispute  

Costs over Assignment                                      
Internal cost                                                         Client in-house costs per Award
                                                                                Client in-house cost/period % Interim fees per period (a)

External spend                                                     Intermediary charges per Award
                                                                                Intermediary’s margin % day rate (b)

Total cost to Client                                              External + Internal cost per Award
                                                                                Engagement cost % Interim fees, i.e. (a)+(b)

Costs for Procurement
Meaningful comparison would require that intermediary fees are 2-part, i.e. a procurement fee (e.g. finder's fee, etc) and a management and administration day rate. This would also enable mirroring of Intermediaries costs. If that were the case then the “Cost Over Assignment” measures would be replicated for the procurement fee element.

Subjective Metrics

SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL INTERIM & INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT (PI) EFFECTIVENESS

This survey looks at three perspectives: client; intermediary; and professional interim/independent consultant (PI).

1. I am answering this survey as (please tick one of the following)
      a. Client
      b. Intermediary
      c. PI

Please answer all following questions by scoring 1- 5, with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree

2. The intermediary provides considerable value-added in terms of external context in terms of clarifying the statement of requirements and in defining the PI brief

3. The intermediary provides a list of potential PIs quickly, i.e. within two to three days

4. The intermediary effectively screens CVs and only presents well matched CVs in the list

5. The intermediary effectively checks security and references

6. The intermediary provides specialized value-added services, like personality tests

7. The intermediary provides good value for money

8. The intermediary’s pricing structure is transparent

9. The intermediary should price separately finder’s fee, ongoing administration for the PI and value added services

10. The intermediary’s timesheet process is efficient and generates minimal errors, i.e. 99%+ first time processing

11. The intermediary pays the interim quickly and efficiently, within a week of receipt of timesheet and 99%+ first time processing without queries

12. The intermediary has invested in web based processing systems that help the client, the intermediary and the PI

13. The intermediary adds value in terms of reviewing and improving the initial terms of reference for the PI

14. The intermediary has a transparent and well drafted contract that generates very few queries

15. The intermediary provides value-added during the PI assignment and physically participates in mid-term reviews

16. The intermediary provides value-added in terms of resolving disputes or differences between the client and the PI

17. The intermediary provides added value in the final review between the client and the PI at the end of the assignment

18. The intermediary conducts an audit or review of the assignment is completed of the whole life cycle, looking for suggestions for improvement with participation of both the client and the interim

19. Overall deploying PIs provides effective value for money compared to branded consulting firms

Please join the discussion "Effectiveness of Interim Management Supply Models – The Metrics?" at API (open) Group on LinkedIn

References:
“What’s the difference between an Interim Manager and a Management Consultant?” by Dr Alf Oldman
“Professional Interims: consultants or contingent labour?” by Tony Colwell
“Public Sector Catch 22” by Dr Alf Oldman

Go to top

A Case for Business Process Management

Part 1 : Business realities and the business process perspective

My attention recently has been directed at public sector reform and the potential challenges the UK faces if budget cuts lead to weakening of central government departments and local authorities before effective transformations can be designed and implemented. Having previously recovered a failing transformation programme, run by insufficiently skilled public sector managers, I can foresee the danger of similar failures occurring on a large scale, with serious implications for the delivery of public services.

In my opinion – shared by many Professional Interims with deep experience of running transformation programmes – external resource will be necessary. The public sector does not have sufficient expertise, in breadth, depth and numbers, to have even a moderate hope of success.

Moving away from the public sector, the same shortfall in capability applies to many private sector organizations embarking on major business change programmes. This is particularly true of those that do not have a business process management focus. What do I mean by “business process management focus?” It is probably easier first to explain the converse, traditional approach, which is as follows.

As our demands and expectations have grown, in order to meet them, organizations (private and public) must adapt. Most businesses do this organically, by splitting the business into departments with specific functions (marketing, sales, procurement, HR, etc.) each building their capability and honing their skills. The result is a series of silos of functional expertise. The role of managing the business processes – i.e. cross-functional processes as opposed to intra-department sub-processes – often falls by default to the IT department, which in itself has been constructed as a silo of technical excellence and is often lacking in broader business experience.

The greater the rate of change, the more this traditional approach struggles to keep up; the greater the ineffectiveness and inefficiency from having a less-than-joined-up approach. There is a growing body of opinion that the entire systems of management need to be reinvented. (See Gary Hamel's video at MIX.) But I am, for the time being, going to stick to a less radical approach.

Business Realities

Focus on excellence within business functions is not enough; each area needs to be part of the bigger picture. At Acuity (Consultants) Ltd we are great believers in improving the co-operation of functions and departments within a business, and collaboration with trading partners.

The Business Process Perspective

The approach can be revolutionary or evolutionary, depending on business circumstances and ability to cope with yet another initiative. But this is one initiative where we expect a rapid payback in terms of management time.

What might such an initiative entail?
• Transcending (leading to breaking down of) the "silo" mentality of an organisation
• Understanding the value chain(s) and each function’s role in adding value.
• Defining metrics and targets relative to what is important to the customer; truly measuring business performance against the customer expectations.
• At one extreme, potentially a new approach to managing day-to-day operations and business change.
• At the other extreme, small but worthwhile improvements in performance by aligning departmental goals and objectives… potentially as part of a larger continuous improvement programme.

Inspired by Gary Hamel's video, I though, before commenting on revolutionary or evolutionary strategies, I might seek some input from the Business Process Management community by starting a discussion on LinkedIn: "Business process management – a complete organisational redesign, or an extension of the IT department?" I am interested in current experiences of large organizations that have broken the mould – moved away from the traditional functional silo – and are operating successfully in a different way. At this stage I have not decided how Part 2 will develop. Let's wait and see if we can gain further insight to alternative models that businesses are operating.

References:
“Reinventing the Technology of Human Accomplishment” Gary Hamel at The Management Innovation eXchange (MIX).
MIX is an open innovation project aimed at reinventing management for the 21st century.

Join the discussion "Business process management – a complete organisational redesign, or an extension of the IT department?" at the Business Process Management Professionals (open) Group on LinkedIn.

Overcoming obstacles to successful change programmes

This week, amongst the many tweets I read, there were several I retweeted, on quite different subjects, that seemed relevant to a central matter of interest: how do we mobilize the Professional Interim community to help the Government to reduce the budget deficit? This matter may not be of interest to all readers, but stay with me... this blog is about Change Management.

Keeping briefly with our matter of interest, the key issues are cynicism within the Interim community that the Government can be influenced, arrogance within Government, and conservatism within the Civil Service. Precisely what I mean by ‘arrogance’ and ‘conservatism’, I will explain, but the theme of this week’s blog derives from the contention that these are recognized attitudes of stakeholders in any change programme… obstacles to the success of the programme… obstacles that need to be overcome.

My retweets pointed to the obstacles themselves, and to aspects of leadership, stakeholder engagement and effective teamwork that form essential considerations in managing change.

The first was a link to a video post, “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”, by Robert Kiyosaki in Supply Chain Today. In his book, Robert Kiyosaki writes about overcoming five obstacles to achieving wealth… which are obstacles to success in many other contexts:
Fear – fear of losing (in this case money, but in other circumstances it could be job, status, power, influence, respect…)
Cynicism – unwillingness to open the mind to new possibilities, and excessive conservatism; the cynicism of others adds to support for our own internal arguments for not taking action (mostly driven by fear).
Laziness – busy people are often lazy; they create work in order to keep or be seen to be busy; they engage in displacement activities rather than focusing on what is important.
Bad habits – continuing ineffective or inefficient ways because “That’s the way we have always done it,” or “We’ve tried that before [actually referring to something different] and it doesn’t work.”
Arrogance – ego plus ignorance: the “If I don’t know it, it can’t be important” attitude, often used to mask ignorance.

The book does not deal directly with conservatism. Conservatism is founded in a combination of any or all of the above, but additionally may have political or power-seeking motives (for example, ‘empire building’: a desire to increase a Department’s scope and budget rather than delivering reform and making savings.)

Overcoming these obstacles requires strong leadership, which brings me to the second article “5 Deadly Leadership Drains” by Terry R Bacon in Bloomsberg Businessweek:

The five power elements of leadership, and how they can be drained, are as follows:
Knowledge – Not knowing is okay; pretending you know,and then getting caught out, drains your power.
Expressiveness – Eloquence in speaking increases a leader’s influence; talk too much (and listen too little) then your influence and power will be diminished.
Attraction – The ability to draw people to you, e.g. through warmth, wisdom, shared experiences; diminishes if you are aloof, arrogant, or self-absorbed.
Reputation – How you are perceived in your various communities enhances all of a leader's other power sources; damaged if you cause grievance but refuse to take responsibility for it.
Willpower - A meta-source of power, the desire to be powerful coupled with the courage to act. Willpower drains if leaders become afraid of moving forward, or do not have resilience; fear of failure is a huge willpower usurper.

The strong leader must engage stakeholders and establish effective teamwork. In the approach developed by Acuity (Consultants) Ltd, to engage stakeholders we address 7 areas:
Sponsorship: Ensuring sponsorship for the change at a senior executive level from both internal ‘supplier’ and ‘customer’ perspectives.
Involvement: Involving the right people in the design and implementation of changes, to make sure the right changes are made.
Impact: Assessing and addressing how the changes will affect people.
Communication: Telling everyone who is affected about the changes... and listening.
Readiness: Getting people ready for the changes, by ensuring they have the right information, training and help.
Responsibilities: Ensuring people understand and accept their responsibilities, and are held accountable.
Compliance: Addressing resistance; in most cases revisiting 1-6 above, but occasionally requiring the removal of negative influences.

But effective teamwork requires more than just engaging stakeholders, important though that is. In the third article, “Six Common Misperceptions about Teamwork” by J. Richard Hackman in Harvard Business Review, Richard Hackman writes that his research shows there are a number of mistaken beliefs about effective teamwork:
Misperception #1: Harmony helps
Research shows that well managed conflict, as long as it is about the work itself, can be good for a team.
Misperception #2: It's good to mix it up [new members, new ideas]
The longer members stay together as an intact group, the better they do. The research evidence is unambiguous.
Misperception #3: Bigger is better
Excessive size is one of the most common - and also one of the worst - impediments to effective collaboration. Small teams are more efficient, and far less frustrating.
Misperception #4: Face-to-face interaction is passé
Despite technology, teams working remotely are at a considerable disadvantage. Periodically bring team members together; there really are benefits to sizing up your teammates face-to-face.
Misperception #5: It all depends on the leader
The hands-on activities of group leaders make a difference but the most powerful thing a leader can do is to create conditions that help members competently manage themselves.
Misperception #6: Teamwork is magical… all one has to do is gather up some really talented people and tell them in general terms what is needed. [Does this sound familiar? How often do we see organisations changed and the lower levels just left to put together the pieces!] On the contrary, success requires careful thought and preparation. The best leaders state clearly what the team is to accomplish, make sure adequate resources are provided, and continue to support the team through to delivery [as reflected in our approach to stakeholder engagement].

So where does all this lead me? Clearly there is a strong case for wider use of Professional Interims (PIs). I’ll keep it brief:
• PIs have overcome their own barriers to change in establishing their independence. Many focus specifically on business transformations and change management.
• They have experience in corporate life at senior level, in leadership positions, and resilience (which is essential to survive and prosper as a PI).
• They are independent of client organisation politics but have the skills to play politically where necessary.
• They stay with their client teams from concept, though implementation and bedding in.
• They have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and gravitas not found in junior consultants or in many of the senior consultants who have climbed the big-consultancy career ladder.
• They provide better value than big consultants.

Now, I opened on the matter of central interest - how do we mobilize the Professional Interim community to help the Government to reduce the budget deficit? One of the alarming consequences of electing ever younger leaders, particularly from the closeted background of the ‘special advisor’, is that they take on the responsibility of office with operational skillsets and experience comparable to junior consultants. Do they actually know how to solve the nations problems? I doubt it. Once we get beneath the rhetoric and high-level principles (which may or may not be laudable, depending on your political leanings) there remains the detail of designing and planning the changes, and making them happen. If we can get past the cynicism, arrogance and conservatism, perhaps, as a series of small teams led by Professional Interims, we can actually reduce the budget deficit without descending into chaos or resorting to avoidable cuts in front-line services.

Join the Professional Interim/ budget deficit discussion in the API (open) Group on LinkedIn.

Join the discussion "Overcoming obstacles to successful change programmes. What are the obstacles, and how do you overcome them?" here in the API (open) Group on LinkedIn or here in the Change Management Network Group on LinkedIn.

Utilising Professional Interims to help reduce the budget deficit

Professional Interims: consultants or contingent labour?

Fellow Professional Interims may be interested in the content of a letter from the Cabinet Office which appears to lump us in the category “contingent labour”. This has prompted me to start a discussion on LinkedIn, " Professional Interims: consultants or contingent labour?" to gather ideas as to what we might do about this apparent lack of appreciation of the existence and value of Professional Interims.

To put the letter in context, it is the Cabinet Office response to a meeting I had with my constituency MP on the subject of using Professional Interims to help reduce the budget deficit. This was part of an initiative, in which I and a number of fellow Professional Interims participated, arising from a discussion in the LinkedIn IIM Group initiated by Dr Alf Oldman on "The Return of Catch 22: Interim Managers caught up in Coalition Government's Catch 22."

Extract from a letter from the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, to James Gray MP, dated 24 May 2011:

Francis Maude

My experience of the Public Sector, limited though it is, contradicts many of the assertions within the letter, on the effectiveness of guidance and toolkits, engagement of most suitable resource, on knowledge and skills transfer, and on ensuring that temporary resources add value. I am also be interested to know, what is “the industry” and who are “the representatives” that the Cabinet Office is working with to develop the new strategy? Hopefully I’ll find out in due course...

But most of all, I found it disappointing and something of an insult to be labeled as “contingent labour”. This prompted me to start the discussion on this point, hopefully to develop some ideas on how we further our objective of educating both public and private sectors on the existence and value of Professional Interims.

Join the discussion in the API (open) Group on LinkedIn.

A single, shared forecast for the business... so what's the problem?

Part 2 : Products at risk, and managing inbound supply

This is the second part of a two-part blog addressing a key question in managing inbound supply chains. How do you ensure your demand forecast is fit for financial forecasting and running the supply chain?

It is commonplace for businesses to put great importance on their forecasts. And, at the insistence of the Finance Department, businesses often operate with a single demand forecast on which the financial forecasts and other forecasts (e.g., labour and materials requirements) are based. After all, how else will the actions of the various departments be aligned? But of one thing we can be sure, the forecast will be wrong.

Over the years, I have witnessed many debates over the accuracy of forecasts and whether the numbers should be higher or lower. Marketing and Sales departments are often optimistic, accountants want to be prudent, manufacturing and procurement are torn between the risk of a shortfall in supply and the threat of unwanted product. The protagonists are usually missing the point. Higher or lower, the numbers will still be wrong. The key question is, “What is the likelihood of actual demand being higher or lower, and by how much?” Without examining the probability that demand will fall within a range of values, how is the organisation going to plan to deliver against actual demand and, at the same time, have an effective means of avoiding waste and redundancy?

In last week’s blog (Part 1) I commented on the sorts of information that are usually available but not used in the forecast... and on the general considerations in meeting the upside and downside.

This week, I cover how this information can be brought together to create a coherent control process focusing on the elements most at risk. The objective is to ensure the right materials are in the right place at the right time, with no shortages, and minimal stock redundancy.

Last week I took a particular example from food manufacturing and retailing, which I will use again. The example could easily apply to many fast moving consumer goods (‘fmcg’), and more widely to other products.

The immediacy of demand for fmcg presents a series of challenges. The particular problem with fmcg is the short forecast horizon in relation to the procurement cycle. Attempts to operate lean supply chains by demand-pull techniques may fail through inability to adjust quickly enough to uplifts in product demand. The scale of, and relationships between trading partners – resulting in lack of leverage for example - may also constrain options for control. Even where it is commercially possible, transferring liability up the supply chain, will not necessarily reduce risk.

A combination of push and pull can be more effective. ‘Demand push’ ensures availability for call off. ‘Demand pull’ controls the delivery to point of consumption - in this case production, but it could be customer. A stock buffer at the pull-push boundary (the point in the supply chain where pull takes over from push) needs to be of a size that allows for the responsiveness of the push process to cope with any fluctuations in demand pull. (The Practice of Supply Chain Management explains the push-pull strategy - expounded earlier by Chopra & Meindl – but reflects limited understanding of modern food/fmcg retailing.)

Conventional push-pull strategy takes advantage of the aggregation of demand, which usually allows greater forecast accuracy. Components are procured according to forecast demand for all products (‘SKU’s’) within a product group; then SKUs are assembled according to actual customer demand. While this approach may provide a more accurate forecast for materials that are common to all SKUs within the product group, it fails to deal with the requirements for unique components.

My focus is on the collaborative management of unique components, and ones with limited application, against the backdrop of uncertainty in demand. In particular we want to control stock both in the buffer and upstream of the push-pull boundary… and thereby minimize exposure to shortages and stock redundancy.

In my food manufacturing example, our aim was to deliver improved materials availability for production and to improve service (both manufactured and outsourced products) to retail customers. In this case, control systems for generic materials were unsuitable for special (limited-application) materials and highly specific or bespoke items, for example, consumer packaging. (Note - for simplicity, I shall use the term ‘materials’ as a non-specific reference to materials, components, ingredients and packaging.) Demand forecast inaccuracy was identified as an issue, and the principle of developing an “at-risk” assessment was accepted by the team working on the commercial forecasting process.

Our approach was to create a composite forecast from different demand streams (as is common practice in fmcg), then use a combination of push and pull. In this case, the push is adjusted according to forecast scenarios reflecting upside and downside, and therefore reflecting the degree of uncertainty in the demand. This is very different from the traditional demand-push approach driven by a single forecast.

The outcome is visibility of the need and extent to which (a) the material supply must be turned down, and (b) the ability to turn supply up must be increased. Thus the approach is not simply a logistical matter. Importantly, it encourages and facilitates a shift in commercial focus… to providing the mechanism for adjusting supply (between upside and downside limits) at lowest overall cost.

So let’s look at this example in more detail.

By taking key outputs from new product development (‘NPD’), existing product development (‘EPD’), offers and promotions (‘Events’), product delisting (both internally and by customers), and commercial forecasting processes, we can improve the materials supply process.

In my example, materials planning needed to take account of volume and variability of product demand, and operate different order/re-order policies for packaging and special ingredients where finished goods (‘FG’) demand was at risk. To do this we needed to provide certain inputs to the materials order/re-order process:
• calculated value for the percentage of FG demand, by SKU by week, which is at risk;
• downside volume on base forecast; upside/downside on NPD, EPD and Events;
• a composite forecast to cover an appropriate time horizon, in this case 16 weeks.

All SKU’s were assigned to a risk category (high/medium/low) to drive the material supply process. The inputs were
• a monthly review by Account Managers to identify at-risk SKU’s by customer account.
• weekly/by exception at-risk-SKU updates, e.g. any SKU addition/deletion/delist.
• weekly/by exception update of Event status and any shortfalls against planned listings. For example, a promotion may be confirmed but will only take place in 4 stores compared to the 20 expected.

These inputs enabled a weekly calculation, by SKU, of percentage volume at risk (see Part 1, Figure 1). The calculation takes account of actual and forecast deliveries relative to hurdle rates, and is compiled from base volume forecast, and Event volumes, by Account. SKUs are automatically assigned to a risk category (high/medium/low). A high-level schematic of the process is in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Materials Control Process

The required data extracts were possible from existing systems with minimal new/modified inputs by Account Management, Demand Forecasting and Customer Supply. (Note – to clarify “new data capture” in Figure 2 – at-risk SKU’s by Account were reported at monthly Account Planning Meetings but not formally recorded in any system. Demand Planning tracked promotional status in a spreadsheet which needed to be replaced for the purpose of calculating at-risk volume by SKU by week.)

SKU at-risk status flags were to be set automatically by calculations on existing data (i.e., forecast v hurdle rates, and event status) but Account teams would maintain, by exception, at-risk status flags where demand is known to be at risk/not at risk despite contrary indications from existing data.

At-risk demand by SKU would be used to drive materials scheduling for limited-use materials only. No direct link to MRP was proposed. The composite demand on multi-use materials was not computed within this development. This left the possibility that at-risk demand could simultaneously turn bad for a number of SKUs sharing a material, with the result that demand for a multi-use material disappears unexpectedly. (By virtue of its multi-use, the material would normally be regarded as low risk.) However, there was a simple automated solution to the classification of limited-use (as opposed to single-use) materials which, with a little manual intervention, could provide a workable solution without complex MRP calculations.

I am not going into the arithmetic of how at-risk volume by SKU was calculated. Suffice it to say these were relatively simple calculations on extracted data.

To determine materials at risk
• SKUs at risk need to be related to materials through the existing bill of materials.
• Filter out sub-classes of materials that do not need to be scheduled by the materials planning function.
• Filter materials by SKU count. Materials used by single (or a few) SKUs are at greater risk than materials with many applications.
• Categorise materials, i.e., high/medium/low risk according to the status of parent SKUs.

Ideally, categorisation of limited-use (as opposed to single-use) materials would be determined by calculations on the aggregate demand for the material, which involves MRP processing. Again, I am not going into the arithmetic, but we were able to make reasonable external calculations so that no modifications to MRP systems were necessary.

Consequently the new material control system could be built using existing reporting tools (or spreadsheets) and operated entirely from MRP system downloads and two simple schedules maintained by the Customer Account Management and Customer Supply teams.

In this case, materials supply was to be run using two default re-order policies (for low and medium-risk) and ‘by exception’ for high risk items. Features such as prioritized listing, ‘traffic light’ displays of at-risk status, and alerts of potential stock run-outs and excessive stock levels, substantial short-term deviations between forecast and actual demand, recommended changes in order policy, could all be incorporated very easily… so facilitating management by exception.

A one-off exercise would examine costs of different materials order/re-order policies. New cost models for each SKU could then be adopted according to the relevant re-order policies. Product-line profitability and commercial forecasts will reflect the reality of supply chain operation.

Another benefit is the ability to share with key suppliers the nature of the uncertainty within forecasts, enabling a more collaborative approach to risk management.

So what does this approach give us?
• Visibility and control of the availability, and scheduling of inbound supplies to enable the right materials to be in the right place at the right time, i.e. no shortages, and minimal stock redundancy.
• Coherent financial and supply chain forecasting.
• In-bound supply chain management by exception, and
• In this case a 15% reduction in staff to control the supply chain.

References:
Terry P. Harrison, Hau L. Lee and John J. Neale (2003). The Practice of Supply Chain Management, Springer
ISBN 0387240993
Sunil Chopra, Peter Meindl (2009) Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation, 4th Ed (1st Ed 2000)
Prentice Hall, ISBN-10: 0136080405, ISBN-13: 9780136080404

Go to top

A single, shared forecast for the business... so what's the problem?

Part 1 : The mess businesses get into

It is commonplace for businesses to put great importance on their forecasts. And, at the insistence of the Finance Department, businesses often operate with a single demand forecast on which the financial forecasts and other forecasts (e.g., labour and materials requirements) are based. After all, how else will the actions of the various departments be aligned? But of one thing we can be sure, the forecast will be wrong.

Over the years, I have witnessed many debates over the accuracy of forecasts and whether the numbers should be higher or lower. Marketing and Sales departments are often optimistic, accountants want to be prudent, manufacturing and procurement are torn between the risk of a shortfall in supply and the threat of unwanted product. The protagonists are usually missing the point. Higher or lower, the numbers will still be wrong. The key question is, “What is the likelihood of actual demand being higher or lower, and by how much?” Without examining the probability that demand will fall within a range of values, how is the organisation going to plan to deliver against actual demand and, at the same time, have an effective means of avoiding waste and redundancy?

In this blog (Part 1) I’ll comment on the sorts of information that are usually available but not used in the forecast.. and on the general considerations in meeting the upside and downside forecasts.

Next week (Part 2) I’ll cover how this information can be brought together to create a coherent control process focusing on the elements most at risk. Acuity’s objective has always been to avoid complexity and bureaucracy, and to focus on managing exceptions... and that remains the case here.

Let me take a particular example from food manufacturing and retailing. The example could easily apply to many fast moving consumer goods (fmcg), and more widely to other products. The principles can also apply to many services (we have experience across manufacturing and services, in private and public sectors), and I can think of cases in areas as diverse as effluent treatment and scientific research, where opportunities existed to improve resource scheduling by better understanding the components of demand.

Fmcg, and foods in particular, are interesting products to study because they exhibit substantial variability and volatility of demand. Demand fluctuations arise not just from seasonality and direct consumer preferences, but also from influences such as weather, from the promotional activities of competing manufacturers, and from the practices of the major retailers. Indeed, managing the allocation of retail shelf space to maximise turnover and gross profit has become a major factor in determining fmcg demand at individual product (SKU) level.

I am often amused by managers in other industries who process demand using simple queueing systems (as many public services do) and say that demand and supply management has no relevance because their demand is unpredictable! Try second guessing a major retailer who will not confirm product listings within the lead time for packaging. And try being at the vagaries of the British weather: ice cream is easy; it’s the processed, short-shelf-life chilled foods (salads for example) that can take off if the sun is shining, but bomb if it rains...! You have to try, and succeed, if you are to retain your position as a leading supplier.

So where does this take us, where forecasting is concerned? One has to consider the key elements of demand. Take our food product. Some key components of demand are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Components of Demand

Secure demand
Includes committed orders, firm contracts, base demand (possibly unsecured) from established listings (e.g. for established branded products) – all firm commitments or reliable forecasts based on relevant past experience.

Volume below account hurdle rates
Demand that is running at or below retailer thresholds, and therefore at risk of being delisted.

Unconfirmed promotions
Proposed listings at new stores, yet to be confirmed, or promotional activity (e.g. buy one get one free) yet to be confirmed by the retailer.

Other demand at risk
Lower than expected consumer demand; any other potential losses: impact of new competition, customer going into receivership, other loss of customer.

Upside demand
Additional consumer demand; potential benefits of promotional activity (above a more prudent view within the Forecast).

In Figure 1, the difference between the upside and secure demand peaks at week 8 and again at week 16. At week 8, upside is 137% and downside is 57% of Forecast. This can be a big problem if you are, say, manufacturing in the UK, sourcing packaging from the Far East (shipping 6 weeks, order turnaround 2 weeks). If the total stock in the supply chain is running at say 12 weeks, by week 8 you could be down to 2 weeks safety stock (at demand upside). Alternatively, you could have 26 weeks stock (at demand downside) and, by then, a product in terminal decline. Because the number of weeks stock is based on a snapshot of demand (and demand may still be falling) this stock could easily exceed lifetime demand… and the outcome is redundant stock. Cut back too early and you face the other risk: the promotions run, are successful, and the product takes off. By the time you can get more stock through the pipeline, your safety stock is gone and sales are supply constrained.

Of course, depending on their competence, Manufacturing and Procurement have wised up to these vagaries. They and other Departments are soon working to their own versions of the forecast! So activity levels and associated costs are now running at variance to the financial forecast. And what about the market intelligence on those promotional activites and supplier listings? Other unofficial commercial forecasts are probably not reflected in the starting figures that Manufacturing and Procurement have manipulated. So you can see the sort of mess businesses get into.

In the case of the food product, to enable the right ingredients and materials to be in right place at right time, i.e. no shortages and minimal stock redundancy, we have to capture and utilise essential outputs from the processes for new product development (NPD), existing product development (EPD), the delisting of products, and the commercial forecasting processes.

Other products or services will have similar/different components of demand to the ones outlined above. These need to be identified and classified according to their risk, and assessed over a timeframe that reflects lead times, manufacturing and/or delivery cycles, and stocks in the supply chain – i.e. up to the point at which variability in demand is unimportant, because responding within that timeframe is not an issue.

Next week I will look in more detail at the data and processes that will enable us to manage supply, in particular the control of at-risk items; this will include the application of different order and re-order policies for components and resources where final product demand is at risk.

Do the UK electoral polling and counting processes need reform?

This blog is inspired (if one can use such a positive term in response to frustration) by discussions within the Professional Interim community, and shambolic electoral processes first observed in the May 2010 General Election.

I wrote to various interested bodies in June last year on the subject of whether we should be taking action in light of Government plans to impose blanket restrictions on the hiring of ‘consultants’, and the likely consequences both for Professional Interims (given the lack of differentiation between interims, consultants and contractors) and for the public sector reforms themselves. The Cabinet Office went on to introduce such restrictions, and the anticipated consequences have come to fruition.

More recently, Dr Alf Oldman started a discussion, “The Return of Catch 22” within the IIM Group on LinkedIn (“Catch 22” refers to the Cabinet Office restrictions.) The discussion culminated in the drafting of a White Paper by Dr Alf Oldman, which a number of contributors (including myself) have shared in face-to-face discussions with our Members’ of Parliament. The White Paper has since been forwarded to Francis Maude at the Cabinet Office.

Arguably the AV Referendum itself was a complete waste of money. With the votes split approximately 70/30 against reform and general apathy within the electorate, the ‘Yes’ votes numbered only 6 million. Only 10 of the 440 counts were in favour – inner-city areas with low turnout. Were it not for the Local elections the overall turnout may well have been lower than the recorded 42%. Even the Liberal Democrat heartlands of the South West showed little enthusiasm for AV, with the exception of Bristol, all returning less than 40% in favour.

The outcome: £90m flushed away as a sop to the Liberal Democrats, even though it was not what they or their supporters really wanted… wasted at a time when we are desperate to cut costs and reduce the budget deficit.

What’s done is done. But can we learn from this fiasco?

In competitive businesses, in manufacturing and service industries, management will take simple steps to ensure that processes are reasonably efficient, effective and adequately (but not over) staffed.

Having witnessed counts in 3 locations across both the May 2010 General Election and the Referendum, it is apparent (to the informed outsider) that the polling and counting processes are grossly inefficient. Yet public sector officials presiding over the process are praising the counters for a job well done, whilst seeming blissfully unaware of the potential to reduce costs. Now the views expressed here are not the result of a scientific study, nor are they necessarily representative of the country as a whole. But they give some insight to what probably happens in polling stations and counting centres across the country.

We have some extreme examples of inefficiency: staffing costs at one polling station were £14 per vote cast. (This is not in a sparsely populated rural area, and the station in question is a mile away from the nearest alternative.) A more representative example of waste is the idle time within the counting process, estimated at 33-50% across the stations/counts observed.

Rather than go through a list of what is wrong with existing processes, we might focus on the positive. How can the efficiency and effectiveness of the counting process be improved?

1. Identify most efficient counting process
In the process observed, all votes are counted and the count validated before sorting, then sorted and subsequently counted by candidate/AV option. In the referendum it would have been quicker to sort and do a total count and validate, then check the sort whilst doing a final count by option. Also the count checks, recording and validation could be improved. An initial sort would also identify votes requiring adjudication, and these could be approved/rejected without delaying the closure of the final counts.

2. Document the count process
Clear and simple documentation would enable briefing of count supervisors and more consistent practice across count teams.

3. Identify best counting practice
By establishing efficient and reliable counting practices covering, for example, the separation, segregation and handling of ballot papers, inefficiency, errors and recounts can be reduced.

4. Brief counting staff
A few simple guidelines on counting would eliminate causes of count errors and avoid recounts.

5. Provide adjudication standards
Adjudication standards for incorrectly completed and spoiled papers, would ensure consistency of decisions and in many instances avoid time wasted chasing adjudicators for decisions (often while a team is idle, waiting to close off a count on one ballot box before moving on to the next).

6. Embed best counting and recording practices
A relatively low level of consistent and informed supervision, and on-the-job instruction, could improve the performance of count staff, identify errors before validation and reduce the number of recounts.

7. Optimum staffing levels and ratios
The right ratio of staff to supervisors and adjudicators is necessary to eliminate idle time waiting for work and/or decisions.

No lengthy or detailed observations have been made outside of the counting process, for example at polling stations, or within the Electoral Commission. In the light of observations made within the counting process, one has to question the role and effectiveness of the Commission itself. It may be that the deficiencies observed are within delegated or devolved authorities. Nevertheless, from limited evidence obtained within the counting halls, it would seem that there is cause to review the number, location and staffing of polling stations, and the flexing of staff numbers according to anticipated use across the day.

In conclusion
In competitive businesses, management will take simple steps to ensure that processes are efficient and effective whilst keeping costs under control. We are yet to be convinced that managers in the public sector do the same.

We are not talking here about radical reform. Back-of-envelope calculations indicate, in this case, savings potential of 10-20%. Why is it that the public sector is so fixated with cutting services when there is such scope to deliver efficiency savings?

We say, “Bring on the Professional Interims and let them sort it out.”

Acuity (Consultants) Ltd

PROFESSIONAL EXECUTIVE INTERIM MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS - PROCUREMENT & SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES AND EXPERTISE