Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Brown, ext 6256

1. Summary

1.1 This paper summarises the improvement options emerging as part of the Transport Network Improvements Best Value Review. Members are invited to contribute comments arising from their own perspectives and experiences to each of the options prior to consultation on them with external stakeholders.

2. Summary of Review Process

2.1 This review is examining the County Council's activities in implementing transport policies by devising, designing and delivering transport infrastructure improvements on the ground. The review process formally commenced on 26 April 2001 when this Committee's predecessor Panel considered the review's scope and programme. In particular, this identified six themes which were determined as priority areas for investigation and action. The subsequent investigations included the `challenge workshops' in which external stakeholders were invited to identify their conception of the ideal service and the barriers to achieving it. The outcomes from the workshops, reported to the Panel on 23 July 2001, then provided the main impetus for consideration by the officer steering group on developing the improvement options which are set out in the next section of this report.

2.2 It should be noted that throughout the review process the officer steering group has sought to identify the potential for improvement through step changes. The ability to do this has however been hindered by the dynamic process of service evolution that already exists in response to legislative and policy changes. For example, in response to the growing demand and staffing needs, a partnership arrangement has recently been secured with W S Atkins to provide design services. The effectiveness of the current service has also been recognised through its designation by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) as a Centre of Excellence. Nevertheless, the search for further improvements continues as part of this best value review.

3. The Improvement Options

3.1 The review's scoping stage divided the service into the following six key topic areas for the investigation of improvement:

1. External Service Provision;

2. Product Procurement;

3. Democratic Process and Minimising Bureaucracy;

4. Whole Life Costings;

5. Public Engagement; and

6. Managing and Developing Skills for the Task.

3.2 The consideration under each topic area is detailed in Appendices 1 to 6 attached to this report. Each appendix sets out the main issues and concerns relating to this topic, a summary of the challenge workshop outputs and a range of possible action areas to be considered within options for improvement. Within each topic the action areas in the improvement options are broadly mutually exclusive, ie they are not either/or options but are cumulative, and thus need to be evaluated and prioritised. Across the topic areas there are more linkages and these need to be identified in more detail when the preferences and priorities for improvement options become clearer. In particular, themes 1 and 2 have fundamental implications for the whole service with respect to how the service is delivered and who does it. A combination of features covered in themes 3 and 5 importantly deal with ensuring a customer focus on what is delivered.

3.3. In due course, each of the options will require some form of economic evaluation to help justify the recommendations in the outcomes report. As noted above the first two themes raise the fundamental questions about the service and who provides it. Comparisons with costings from the County Council and alternative providers will therefore be provided for consideration at the forthcoming challenge workshops. The remaining four themes are more concerned with identifying those aspects of the service which it is believed will result in qualitative service improvements. Detailed financial appraisals are not currently available and are unlikely to be accurately assessed without some form of trial. Appraisals of these are therefore likely to be withheld until the action plan is implemented.

3.4 It should be noted that the options have taken due regard of Member suggestions at the last meeting to consult with authorities who recently obtained unitary status and consequently had to revise the operation of their highway and transport functions. While the discussions confirmed similar perspectives and problems, little consistent advice emerged that would set a template for the County Council's improvement programme. In the main, their new arrangements were based on those that existed in the predecessor authorities. Consequently their first fundamental reviews will also occur as part of the best value process.

4. Forthcoming Review Programme

4.1 Following this meeting the officer steering group will focus on completing this review and preparing its final recommendations in the Outcomes Report to be presented to this Committee in January 2002. This will confirm the actions needed to deliver the service's improvement programme. Investigations in the intervening period will therefore seek to refine the options presented in this report.

4.2 The key element of the preparation for the final stage of the review will be to seek the views of the staff involved in delivering the service and its key stakeholders. For this latter group, the participants of the original challenge workshops plus other interested parties have been invited to attend a second series of workshops to be held between 7 and 21 November 2001. Details of these workshops were disseminated to Members at the meeting of this Committee on 24 September and a number of Members have agreed to attend and contribute to these sessions. With the stakeholders, these sessions will explore the implications of the options on them and will seek to find out their views, further ideas and priorities for action.

Recommendation

That Members' comments and preferences are invited on the options in the topic reports. These will be incorporated into the discussions at the forthcoming challenge workshops and considered for inclusion in the final report.

6723/PNB

APPENDIX 1

TOPIC 1 - EXTERNAL SERVICE PROVISION

Why does Hampshire County Council Employ Internal Staff Resources?

Although local authorities are charged with delivering improvements to the transport network, the key question is why does Hampshire County Council employ its own internal staff to deliver this service? The design, consultation, contract preparation and procurement processes are complex and technically challenging, and require a high degree of professionalism to undertake.

Resources to undertake this process are drawn from a wide range of professions and have historically mainly been undertaken in Hampshire by employing internal staff resources. The exception to this being in the contracting field where there are no internal contractors.

The reason behind the historical structuring of departments is complex and relates to political philosophies, work ethics and cultural attitudes. All the pressures have influenced the shape of the organisation to undertake the delivery of the service. There are also some important business factors that influence the decision making process. These are:

(i) cost of providing the service;

(ii) availability of resources;

(iii) control of resources and skills;

(iv) influence of design process; and

(v) risk management.

Summary of the Key Outcomes of the Challenge Process

The County Surveyor's Department has already reviewed the way in which resources are employed. This challenge has been inspired by the previous Government directives to consider Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) and the problems experienced in recruiting appropriately skilled staff resources. This has already led to greater involvement with the private sector and an improved awareness of each sector's skills delivery strengths.

It was apparent from the workshops that the perceived difference between external and internal service provision was now better understood by both sides. There was also an acknowledgement that, although there are cultural and business barriers between the way each operates, there was a recognition that these could be dealt with and a greater understanding of approach possible.

The need to define what is "Best Value" for the service was not seen as a local authority problem and there was a greater feeling that all parts of the industry (consulting, contracting and public sector) were jointly involved in seeking a way to deliver quality services.

The past approach to using external resources to deliver services was recognised to be adversarial. The contractual arrangements tended to be divisive and, rather than the assumption that external resources could work in harmony with the local authority, the approach adopted erred on a sceptical view of external service provision. This was also reflected back towards the local authority by external service providers looking to maximise returns from contracts rather than delivering best quality.

A common feature of the workshops was a consensus view that both internal and external service providers could deliver services and meet both the private sector and public sector aims and objectives and work in partnership. It emerged that the delivery of the transport network improvement service could be achieved by a variety of methods. The current partnering arrangement with W S Atkins consultants and the work on procurement initiatives were already indications of a greater use of the mixed economy.

The need to meet service delivery targets and deliver a larger capital programme had placed pressure on the authority. Although a new approach, utilising the private sector to deliver services had been adopted, this was seen as more of a pragmatic approach than one to meet Best Value objectives, but clearly would provide the means to assess the comparison with parallel methodologies.

Possible Options for Change/Improvement

Arising from the discussions in the workshops it was apparent that there were several options for changing and improving the service. The benefits of changes are not yet transparent and many will emerge through experience. A key to assessing the success of alternative methods of service delivery will be ensuring the correct service targets and performance indicators are set and measured. This is a key area for reviewing Best Value services but it is also complex and needs further consideration.

Option 1 - Wholesale Externalisation

The service area being reviewed comprises a number of different complex functions. Wholesale externalisation of the service is a possible options. This would leave a rump client within the department to administer the service. This is similar to the `Berkshire' model which has not been seen as a successful approach to delivering services and has now been abandoned.

Option 2 - No External Service Provision

Provision of 100% of services internally has never been achieved within the local authority in the past 25 years. Although theoretically possible, this approach would require the authority to recruit staff with a wide range of skills which is seen as a non-commercial approach. This would lead to some staff being under utilised and resources wasted.

Option 3 - Flexible Mixed Economy

The service could be structured on the premise that most services would be provided internally but when this approach was overloaded external service providers were brought in on an ad-hoc basis to assist. Such an approach would require considerable management resources, would involve expensive tendering processes on a regular basis and would not guarantee that resources from the private sector would be available at the time the authority desired them.

Option 4 - Long Term Contracts

In order to overcome the tendering disbenefits in Option 3 above it would be possible to enter into long term contractual arrangements (three to five years) for the delivery of specific service elements. This has the benefits that resources would be contracted to the authority but would not integrate those resources into the department. It would provide known cost evaluation for scheme delivery and would introduce an element of flexibility to meet service demand fluctuations.

Option 5 - Partnerships

This approach is already being employed through the professional services partnering arrangement with W S Atkins. Not only does it provide increased resource availability to meet varying demands but it also integrates the consultants into the culture in which the department works, thereby ensuring scheme development better meets its needs. This provides much closer working with the authority and provides greater degrees of awareness and risk sharing in the delivery of the service.

Option 6 - Integrated Working

Demarcation of responsibilities for service delivery has led to a compartmentalised approach to developing schemes and delivering them. This has resulted in service delivery being delayed and extra costs being incurred through duplication of effort or poorly designed products. By integrating the contracting elements of scheme provision into the design process it would be possible to improve design quality and is likely to result in better quality schemes at a lower price. There is also the opportunity to share the risks in a transparent way to avoid the need for high levels of `insurance' claims.

Justification

All the above options have some merits and demerits. The service being delivered is large and complex and does not lend itself to one specific option. In appraising these options it will be important to consider the objectives and targets seen as important in delivering the service. It is also vital to consider the situation that pertains regarding the economy and labour market. What might be suitable now may not be suitable in a future scenario. Therefore whatever provides Best Value today must be considered and reconsidered as the environment changes. There can be no rigid approach if the desire to deliver Best Value is to be achieved and maintained.

The method of delivering services is also related to other elements of this service. Certainly the procurement techniques that may be adopted in the future will have a significant impact on this element of the service. Ultimately the approach to Best Value will be achieved through a complex assessment of many service criteria.

Priority for Action

This issue is not being faced for the first time. As has been indicated the authority has been engaged in external service provision for some time at varying levels. This should continue but a structured approach should be determined that provides helpful feedback in order that the best possible methods can be identified and developed in other areas of the service if considered applicable.

It is important not to consider this approach in isolation. Many of the benefits arising from externalisation of service delivery will be reaped by the private sector in addition to those gained for this service. The external service providers have indicated a willingness to engage in this review and they should be engaged as stakeholders in any changes/modifications that are considered. In this way there can be a win-win situation which benefits the whole of the service to the benefit of the customer.

APPENDIX 2

TOPIC 2 - PRODUCT PROCUREMENT

Background

All construction activities for the large and varied programmes of civil engineering works are delivered on behalf of Hampshire County Council by the private sector. This has been the case since Hampshire Works, the direct labour organisation, was privatised. The methods of procurement used by the Environment Grouping have developed on several fronts, exploiting new forms of contract and new methods of engagement to match differing needs for various types of works. Although lessons continue to be learnt, the expanding programmes of works make it timely to revisit the approach and to develop a procurement strategy to deliver the increased work volume at a time when resources are under pressure. For example, is it always necessary to provide a complete design specification for works or should greater emphasis be placed on setting quality targets and seeking `design and build' contracts? Also, in line with the Government drive to improve the construction industry performance (through the `Rethinking Construction' programme and other inter-related initiatives), there are probably further benefits to be made by improved methods of working with contractors.

Summary of Outcomes of the Challenge Process

Striking the best balance between innovation, risks, costs, probity, and `acting as a customer in the best interests of the local economy' is complex and often at odds. An ideal procurement system would be accountable, share values and common objectives, and recognise a fair profit whilst delivering appropriate quality at a competitive price. It would be a contractual arrangement that encouraged innovation and facilitated added value by both client and contractor.

There are real or perceived barriers to working more in partnership with contractors and minimising adversarial contractual situations. This seems to be focused on early contractor involvement, an interactive interface between design and construction, greater flexibility within Standing Orders and financial regulations and long term arrangements to facilitate continuity and therefore enhanced resource management. Examples and other initiatives that may enlighten `best practice' include British Airports Authority, Derbyshire County Council, Trafalgar Square Improvement and Thames Water Authority. Given the national upturn in workload, it is important to introduce new methods of working soon so as to reduce the impact of resource limitations and realise efficiencies early. In recognition of this, many of the issues raised at the workshop already feature in the developing procurement strategy for delivery of the enhanced capital programme. The best value review process will complement and assist in those strategy decisions.

Possible Options for Change and Improvement

Option 1 - Wholesale Design and Build

The whole programme of works could be delivered by commissioning design and build contracts with minimal advance design, relying on a client brief to specify the whole product. This could also include a maintenance role for the contractor. It would move design risk to the contractor with an associated financial implication, and would require changes to political involvement.

Option 2 - Partnership Contracts

Greater involvement of contractors at an earlier stage (before design completion) and more of a team approach during the construction stage. Value Engineering and Value Management would be key features and this procurement method could encompass longer term partnerships with a specific contractor for a range of projects.

Option 3 - A Single Term Capital Contract

Invite competition for one contractor to deliver the whole, or most, of the capital programme for a medium term contract (approximately four years). Other than subcontracting, this would preclude a large number of local and national contractors from securing work from the County Council but may produce economies of scale.

Option 4 - More Than One Term Capital Contract

Similar to Option 3 above but divided, geographically and/or by works type, into several medium term contracts.

Option 5 - Complete Designs with Individual Contracts

All projects to be progressed to final design stage, followed by individual competitive contracts for construction. A large number of projects have been successfully delivered in this way although recent Government initiatives suggest that traditional forms of contract lead to adversarial positions and inefficiencies through duplication of effort and financial pressure.

Note:

The above options are intended to challenge the strategy for procurement. The specific `form of contract' (eg ICE 7th Edition, ECC Contract, etc) is a subsequent more detailed decision issue.

Justification/Evaluation

An evaluation process of the above options and hybrids is under way. These are looking at the options from two perspectives:

(i) `Government' which emphasises the need to retain strong democratic control over certain schemes for the public interest; and

(ii) `commercial' which emphasises the need for cost controls.

A report on this evaluation is being prepared.

Initially, different options perform better under the two perspectives. Overall, there is a role for a mixed approach with partnership arrangements being strongly supported .

Priority for Change

The pressures associated with the rapid expansion of the capital programme mean that new procurement arrangements should be urgently sought and be a high priority in the action plan. Investigations will therefore continue on how best to establish multi-project contracts through formal non-adversarial partnerships.

APPENDIX 3

TOPIC 3 - DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND MINIMISING BUREAUCRACY

Background

Often seen as the scourge of local democracy, bureaucracy, often associated with slow, inefficient decision making, is the price to be paid to ensure probity, consistency, fairness and transparency in the County Council's affairs. In principle, it can help facilitate open competition, ensure value for money and encourage a vibrant economic environment. It also seeks to ensure the County Council acts within the law and complements the democratic process by empowering the County Council with a mandate to undertake duties and decisions. But, there remains a perception that decision making and Standing Order processes are too long and unnecessarily cumbersome. The County Surveyor's Department is also accredited with ISO9000 for its quality management system.

Summary of Challenge Process

The public now expects high standards of relevant services based on informed choices and decisions that can be made through a number of different channels (Internet, one stop shop, television). These seek to provide speedier transactions, convenience and access, reduced waiting times, minimise referrals, eliminate interactions that fail to yield useful actions, improve public relations and offer flexibility. At the same time they lack or have little interest or understanding of political management structures and view the County Council as remote, inaccessible and impersonal. The County Council is also seen to have a tendency to concentrate on strategic responsibilities that have little meaning to the public at the expense of services. In so doing, it can come across as being old fashioned, inefficient, lacking in openness and honesty. There is also a perception that often it takes little notice of values and opinions that the public believes could make a difference. These views are, in part, based on an assumption that large public bureaucracies are less efficient, slower and more cumbersome than modern private corporations, and on the fragmented means of delivering governmental and transport services. Bureaucratic alienation is further reinforced by confrontations with `faceless administrators', long timescales and lags between being informed and implementation.

Ultimately, the service should as efficiently as possible:

(i) ensure speedy decisions, meet deadlines and achieve targets through appropriate quality and reasonable cost;

(ii) meet agreed corporate/community priorities while also allowing politicians to add value and meet local needs;

(iii) achieve sustainable outcomes accounting for short and long term objectives;

(iv) manage and meet customer expectations;

(v) enable conflicts to be seen to be resolved efficiently and fairly;

(vi) encourage innovation to achieve world class solutions; and

(vii) encourage lateral thinking and achieve joined-up services.

To achieve the ideal, processes are required which minimise the effects of lengthy legislative requirements through better preparation. There is a need to acknowledge that trying to keep everybody happy takes time and developing innovation is not always quick or successful. Problems arising from initial budget estimates, prepared before the project has been fully defined, being carried forward too far in the project planning process also need to be overcome. There is a need for an approach to identify and deal with the risks associated with this aspect. The role of the quality management system in contributing to the solutions, or being part of the problem, also needs to be explored.

It should be noted that many of the issues raised relating to the democratic process were in fact found to cut across and be more relevant to the discussions on public engagement. These issues are therefore raised under Topic 5.

Options for Service Changes/Improvement

Three possible options were considered:

(i) no change;

(ii) incremental change; and

(iii) fundamental change.

Option 1 was discounted as being unacceptable given the County Council's commitment to Best Value and the need to improve the delivery of a large programme. Changes in terms of structures, process and procedures are also required in order to meet scheme implementation targets. In view of the potential complexity it is considered that a number of actions should be considered for incremental change rather than a major one-off modification.

Actions

The following actions are suggested for further consideration and investigation:

(i) Encourage participation between Members and Executive by clarifying relationships and embed a change and performance culture by annual accountability and peer group comparisons. See also public engagement.

(ii) Review how decision-making and reporting procedures for undertaking projects or groups of projects are made, including a further review of Standing Orders, capital programme budget allocations and procurement procedures across the authority. This should seek to achieve consistency and streamline processes that can be tailored to circumstances through a framework, blueprint or tool kit manual.

(iii) Develop and simplify the QA procedures to reflect the whole process of scheme delivery and internal and external relationships by adopting quality chains or circles, and working procedures.

(iv) Encourage further partnership working to meet resource demands in flexible ways, such as term or schedule rate contracts, and modify internal structures to suit. See also external provision and procurement.

(v) Use networking methods, including team meetings and lunch-time talks etc, to raise awareness of issues, policies, knowledge of businesses, improve willingness and inclination towards action. See also skills.

(vi) Investigate the provision of more discretionary powers to the intermediate layers of the service, ie middle/project managers, to remove unnecessary impediments. See also skills.

(vii) Invigorate activities and involvement with central and regional government, and private sector partnerships to influence external and internal conditions to provide more effective risk identification, minimisation and ownership of risk. Enhance this practice through management information systems and whole life costings, to allow events to be anticipated, costed, planned and prepared with greater certainty. See also external provision, product procurement and whole life costings.

(viii) Further apply e-government to provide a clearer identity over services and their providers; a tool for communication and consultation with customers; a means of procurement; a means of informing public interest decisions; political dialogue; management of organisation and resources; as well as technical and operational support structures to speed up transactions, manage projects and provide redress. See all other sections.

Potential Benefits

Areas identified for benefits are:

(i) improved efficiency;

(ii) improved communication and interface;

(iii) involved, informed and engaged staff and community;

(iv) more satisfied staff, stakeholders and community;

(v) more effective management;

(vi) improved collaboration and coordination of public services and delivery; and

(vii) enhanced innovation in service delivery.

Priority for Action

It is considered that the following should be priorities for action:

(i) clarifying relationships and democratic responsibilities between authorities in multi-tier areas;

(ii) reviewing structure, decision-making and reporting, and ensure transparency to the public;

(iii) reviewing Standing Orders and other procedures; and

(iv) improving information responsibilities (including delegated powers) of decision makers.

APPENDIX 4

TOPIC 4 - WHOLE LIFE COSTINGS

Introduction

Consideration by the County Council as Highway Authority of whole life costs in relation to the transport network has traditionally focused upon the construction and maintenance costs of a scheme over its lifetime. In reviewing its activities as Highway Authority for Best Value, the County Council acknowledges the need to better understand and account for the long term financial costs to the authority and the consequent wider community and environmental costs of its transportation programme. This means that when the whole life costs of schemes are considered the economic, social and environmental costs, including those costs borne by others, are taken into account. This can bring both long term financial benefits to the authority and consequential benefits to the community at large, eg through attracting further inward investment to areas that have benefited from good quality, long life transport schemes.

Summary of Key Outcomes of the Challenge Workshops

Although not explicitly spelt out in the County Council's strategies and programmes, consideration of whole life costs underlies the aims of the County Council's corporate strategies, in particular the Sustainable Development Strategy. Nevertheless, because the concept of whole life costs is not clearly set out in the County Council's policies and programmes there is a lack of appreciation for whole life costs in its widest sense. More importantly they are not built into and able to influence in a meaningful way the scheme design process.

Consideration of whole life costs is important for the management of the County Council's budgets so as to be able to demonstrate both the short and long term cost implications of its highway assets. There would also be benefits from being able to show that the County Council's proposals have affected investment and costs in the wider community.

Whilst desirable, the process for considering wider community/environmental whole life costs could be difficult to manage, if too complex, particularly given the size of the current transport capital programme (600+ schemes). At present there is no simple means or mechanisms for comparing costs in a tangible and transparent manner.

There is a view that the monitoring of schemes once they have been implemented is inadequate and consequently there is insufficient feedback to scheme designers on long term issues such as maintenance and repair. This significantly reduces the opportunity for engineers to learn from previous experience and adapt and/or amend current and future schemes.

Whole life costs should not only be applied to future transportation schemes but also to the County Council's existing transportation assets.

Budgetary constraints and the imperative to keep costs down can mitigate against the use of high quality materials, or limit the options being considered. The Highway Authority needs to consider how this can be reconciled when considering costs over a scheme's lifetime.

Possible Options for Change/Improvement

Three possible options were considered:

(i) no change;

(ii) incremental change; and

(iii) fundamental change.

Option 1 - No change from the present arrangements is not favoured as a viable option given the Highway Authority's commitment through Best Value to seek continued improvements in the delivery of its service, and contribute to achieving the authority's wider corporate sustainable development objectives.

Option 3 - Fundamental change was also discounted as being impractical given the size (600+ schemes) and nature (predominance of small scale improvements) of the transport programme, together with the complexity for comparing/quantifying social and environmental costs.

The Preferred Option

Drawing together the key findings from the Challenge Workshops, outlined above, the following preferred option for improvement was identified:

Option 2 - Incremental change. Given the complexity of this issue this is considered to provide a realistic, practical and deliverable approach. Such a measured step by step review will enable any whole life costs framework to be refined over time with new criteria added as appropriate, as the County Council's knowledge and understanding of the subject increases, as well as through practical experience.

The following actions are recommended:

Action 1 - Whole life costs checklist. A checklist that provides a framework for the consideration of whole life costs (as defined above) be developed. The checklist will need to be simple in concept, easily understood and transparent. It must be robust but at the same time flexible and adaptable enabling the introduction of new criteria as necessary. It must also be possible to audit the process and for it to become an integral element of the County Council's transportation scheme design process from inception through to design and construction. The process will be subject to continued review and when necessary refined.

Action 2 - Monitoring. The County Council's process for monitoring its transportation schemes be reviewed to establish clear guidelines governing the nature of its monitoring process. This should have regard to the scale of the transport capital programme and the small scale nature of many of the schemes in the programme.

Action 3 - Planning obligations. The authority encourages Government to extend planning obligations (a means by which local authorities secure funding for transport improvements in association with new development) to cover not only the capital costs of construction but also for the future maintenance (revenue) costs.

Justification

The County Council in the delivery of its services is committed to achieving the aims of sustainable development through both its corporate strategies and through its land use and transportation policies in the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review and targets in the Hampshire Local Transport Plan and Road Traffic Reduction Act Report. As the County Council's Corporate Sustainable Development Strategy states:

"Sustainable development is not only about `greening' the Council's activities but about managing activities in such a way that social, environmental and economic considerations are taken into account equally, consistently and at all times."

Proper consideration of the wider social, economic and environmental whole life costs of its transport capital programme is therefore an important contribution to the County Council's objective of achieving sustainable development as well as achieving best value through improvement to one of the Council's key services.

Placing the consideration of whole life costs at the heart of the transportation design process will provide benefits to both the County Council and the community at large. For example, there are long term financial and economic benefits to the authority, eg by ensuring that materials are suitable and appropriate, ie `fit for purpose' will result in cost savings over the lifetime of a scheme. Crucially it will also save costs to key community stakeholders through reductions in delays caused by maintenance and repairs to the highway network, which places real costs onto the business community in particular. In cities, towns and villages transport delays can undermine town centre strategies which seek to promote the vitality and viability of the commercial/business centres. Environmental as well as economic benefits would be achieved if factors such as the sourcing of materials were considered. For example sourcing locally could bring energy savings and contribute to national and local government targets for reducing greenhouse gases. It would also reduce the environmental impacts of traffic on communities affected by traffic on the highway network.

Improving post construction monitoring of schemes will ensure that key stakeholders are engaged in the process beyond the implementation stage. Also, that their views are taken into account on a consistent basis to help inform the County Council not only in relation to the scheme itself but also on how the County Council delivers similar schemes elsewhere in the future. This should result in improvements in customer satisfaction.

Priority for Action

It is considered that the development of a checklist for whole life costings and the review of the monitoring process should be undertaken during year one of the Action Plan.

Changes to the system of planning obligations is an aspiration that will only be achieved with the assistance of other authorities lobbying Government. This is a longer term objective.

APPENDIX 5

TOPIC 5 - PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Why does the County Council Consult and Engage?

Public engagement is a key element in providing a customer focus in the delivery of transport improvement schemes and shaping what the County Council delivers. Although statutory rules apply for proposals requiring non-highway land, public consultation is not a statutory requirement for many of the County Council's other improvement proposals.

In common with other elements of this service, consultations do not have to be undertaken by staff directly employed by the Highway Authority. Indeed, in some respects the independence of consultation staff from the design process can be valuable in enhancing effective dialogue. Notwithstanding this, good public consultation contributes significantly to the final scheme being fit for purpose and meaningful engagement facilitates this aim. Furthermore, recent human rights legislation and the obligations of the Aarhus Convention have strengthened people's rights to be consulted and to have access to information and the decision making process. This topic is therefore interlinked with that concerning the democratic process.

While it is difficult to account for consultation as a separate activity, a growing proportion of the effort in developing an improvement scheme is being spent on consultation related activities.

NB: The term consultation is used in this paper to encapsulate a very wide potential range of methods to engage with and obtain information from the public.

Summary of Key Outcomes of the Challenge Process

Investigations and discussions have confirmed the high importance of public consultation in this service both during the scheme preparation and implementation stages. Although much good practice has evolved in Hampshire from the `Headstart' community engagement programme, there has been inconsistency in the types and levels of engagement and skills employed. Improvements in the County Council's consultation processes are desirable but will have to be achieved in the face of a growing capital programme and the need to contain costs and use staff resources effectively. Whilst only a small proportion of people affected take the opportunity to comment on transport proposals, withdrawing this part of the service would probably be publicly untenable. Indeed, a service aim could be to involve more people.

As part of an improved service, the consultation process should strive to be efficient, inclusive and transparent. Stakeholders should have confidence in there being an honest and appropriate level of true engagement which complements the democratic process. This could use a model developed in consultation with, and agreed by, key stakeholders, including representatives of hard to reach groups. E-government opportunities should also be fully exploited.

Possible Options for Change/Improvement

Three options for this part of the service have been identified and are discussed below. These options are to:

(i) improve the existing service;

(ii) make no changes; and

(iii) abandon all non-statutory consultations.

Option 1 - Improve Existing Service

Five possible action areas have been identified within an improvement option. Most of these can be achieved, at least partly, through redirecting existing resources and will thus have relatively minor cost implications.

Action Area 1 - Giving Better Access to Information. Usually only relatively limited information about scheme proposals is available to the public prior to the consultation exhibitions or meetings (such information is usually that contained in the Local Transport Plan). This breeds cynicism that the County Council has already made its decision. Better access to information at an early stage, together with a well publicised, welcoming feedback process, could contribute to the aim of achieving community engagement. Issuing periodic bulletins on implementation progress has also been occasionally undertaken (eg Jewry Street, Lyndhurst High Street) and could be extended.

When information is available its content and detail is not tailored to public needs and awareness of its availability is low. Enhanced use and awareness of Hantsweb offers the opportunity to make timely information more available (and be printed off for those without internet access). Other opportunities exist through:

(i) County Council Information Centres displaying information on local consultations more clearly;

(ii) Hantsweb (Having your Say section);

(iii) the Hampshire Listening initiative;

(iv) a call/service centre approach; and

(v) Community Planning Citizen juries.

Action Area 2 - Agreeing a Consultation Charter/Compact. At present the choice of the means, scale and timing of consultation largely rests with the officers designing the scheme. They make a judgement based on their perception of the importance of the issue and the need for information that will help with the design. This is largely a professional based viewpoint that, across the service, takes little consistent account of stakeholders' needs or requirements and is possibly constrained by the issues discussed in Action Area 4. Consequently, stakeholders (even seasoned consultees) have no consistent expectations of whether and how they will be consulted.

A better customer focus could be achieved by establishing some consistent rules of engagement. Consultation with a range of key stakeholders is required to confirm this, but the rules could explain the scheme development process and set out:

(i) the forms of consultation the County Council will use in certain circumstances;

(ii) the County Council's willingness to receive and consider views, even if not during a formal consultation process;

(iii) the type of information and comments the County Council would welcome, want or need from the public;

(iv) how the public can get access to relevant information, advice and assistance, including feedback on consultations; and

(v) how to access and engage the elected Members, particularly on a ward basis.

Action Area 3 - Improve Transparency of Decision Making Process. Public access to, and understanding of, the decision making process is a key element of building trust and good community/stakeholder relations. The County Council has been identified as being somewhat remote. The County Council's decision making processes are not well understood except by seasoned stakeholders and there is no information available that gives a simple explanation of the process or one's rights to be involved (an exception was the right to address Council meetings but this has recently changed as part of the Modernisation Agenda). There is also no consistency in the means of supplying feedback, responding to comments or notifying consultees of decisions.

Improvements in these areas may help build trust and confidence in the County Council's democratic and decision making processes. Improvements could include:

(i) providing clear guidance on the design and decision making processes setting out the opportunities for consultation;

(ii) explaining how consultees' views will be considered, addressed and reported; and

(iii) clarifying consultees' rights to address officers and elected Members.

Action Area 4 - Ensuring Staff are Equipped with the Right Skills. Staff involved in scheme consultations need to know the details of the proposed schemes. But equally, if not more importantly, they need to have an understanding of the principles and tools of participation. The necessary skills include listening, knowledge of publicity, understanding stakeholder perspectives, effective communication, conflict negotiation/resolution skills and facilitating workshops. At present these skills are not consistently included in the personal requirements or competencies of the staff likely to take part in consultation processes.

Personal requirements should be reviewed to recognise the important contribution that could be made by dealing with the public and their concerns in the most effective way. Service improvements could include:

(i) identifying specific training needs to be audited as part of Performance Development Reviews and consultation reviews;

(ii) establishing internal training programmes to fulfil consultation skills requirements; and

(iii) undertaking and reacting to customer satisfaction surveys of the County Council's consultation programme.

Action Area 5 - Effective Use of Staff Resources. At present involvement in public consultation falls on a high number of the service's staff, including managers, particularly those with professional planning and design skills. With the increasing shortage of these skills it is important to ensure that design and planning expertise is targeted in the most effective way.

One option would be to designate support staff (trained in accordance with Action Area 4) to specialise on many of these duties and relieve other professional staff. This could be achieved through including them in a unit (or virtual team) within the service to progress consultation exercises throughout the service. Skills and knowledge in these topics would therefore not be divided up by geographical area or functional team as at present. In liaison with the Corporate Communications Team, this team may be able to progress such work for other functions within the Environment Grouping. The overall aim would be to build up skills and specialisms in:

(i) public participation planning;

(ii) preparing for publicity and press and public notices;

(iii) arranging the event and venue;

(iv) dealing with complaints;

(v) sending feedback; and

(vi) facilitating workshops.

This task could also be considered separately for externalisation although synergies and benefits of knowledge obtained through inter-working could be lost.

Option 2 - No Change

Hampshire County Council has a relatively good reputation for developing consultation practices and changes could be viewed overall as a low priority. An option for no change in the current practice would have a negligible/neutral financial impact on the service. However, it is considered unrealistic given the need for the desired improvements highlighted in Option 1 and the normal pace of change where the service continuously evolves in line with the demands made upon it.

A `no change' option would also undermine the ability of the service as a whole to deliver projects on time as capital funding and the consequent need for consultation increases.

Option 3 - Abandon all Non-Statutory Consultations

An option to abandon consultation work for all but the few statutory requirements is a possibility. However, it would largely have unpredictable consequences for the service. Certainly a sizeable proportion of scheme preparation time could, in theory, be saved. However, as well as being open to the charge of being unresponsive and undemocratic it is likely that scheme delivery would be seriously prejudiced by being unable to incorporate valuable stakeholder information which could improve scheme value and effectiveness. The loss of expertise would also seriously impair the effectiveness of the remaining statutory consultation requirements.

Justification/Evaluation

These options need to be assessed with regard to potential resource savings, efficiency improvements and customer requirement/satisfaction improvements. The evaluation is continuing and will need to be completed in tandem with the development of the preferred options emerging under the other six topic areas. Nevertheless they would fulfil a major part of the County Council's commitment in its Sustainable Development Strategy to improve community cooperation.

Priority for Action

Meaningful engagement is vital to the identification of schemes that meet transport needs, that are fit for purpose and make the most productive use of capital budgets - particularly if this results in no change being the best solution. The importance of the options and the individual action areas need to be judged and accorded appropriate priority within the proposed action plan. However, it is suggested that they warrant a high priority for early investigation and conclusion in order to meet the growing demands of the capital programme. Accordingly, a number of the action areas within the improvement option should be progressed in the first year of the action plan.

APPENDIX 6

TOPIC 6 - MANAGING AND DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR THE TASK

Introduction

A key element of the provision of any County Council service is the input made by the staff themselves. In order to make their input effective and produce a successful and cost effective service, staff need to be managed well and they need to be trained to do the job in hand. In the Transport Network Improvement service the delivery of a vastly increased capital programme adds extra pressure to a discipline where there is already a shortage of skilled professionals. The service needs to be able to recruit, train and retain staff with the requisite skills.

Key Outcomes from Challenge Process

The current staffing structure within the department is set up with specialist teams working in separate professional disciplines. The civil engineering profession is dominant in this service, although it has become less so in recent years. Team working is hierarchical and rigid, although there has been a trend towards multi-disciplinary project teams.

Senior staff usually need to combine technical knowledge with staff management responsibilities, although they may not have competencies for the latter role.

Exit interviews for the 45 staff who left the Transport Branch (a group larger than the Transport Network Improvements service team) in the past year reveal that only 10 left for reasons out of the County Council's control as an employer.

Amongst its findings, a MORI staff survey found relative dissatisfaction with three line management issues in the County Surveyor's Department; praise for good work, feedback on performance and having the opportunity to show initiative.

Options for Service Improvements

Two options have been considered in this process. The preferred option is a package of complementary improvements to be selected from the proposals set out and discussed below. Responsibilities for achieving these will vary between different parts of the service and could also depend on considerations in the other topic areas for other service changes and change of providers. The second option would be for no change. In view of the issues identified during the challenge process this option is not considered appropriate as it could lead to further deterioration in manning levels and staff morale.

Options for service improvements should address three key elements of concern raised during the challenge workshops:

(i) improving levels of competency by increasing training opportunities and making them more relevant to service needs;

(ii) linking levels of competency with career development planning and rewards for staff; and

(iii) promoting a culture of praise and respect for staff achievement and welcoming staff views including those of criticism and constructive comment.

Specific actions necessary to address these areas are:

(i) Ensure implementation of the Transportation Branch Model for Career Development and the Staff Learning and Development Plan.

(ii) Ensure that people management skills and competencies are address as part of the Organisational Development Strategy.

(iii) Establish an appropriate framework to monitor and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of all project work and to ensure that experience is fed back into work practices and subsequent projects.

(iv) Introduce greater flexibility to the benefits package in the `Employment in Hampshire County Council' conditions.

(v) Establish a mentoring scheme to assist staff development.

(vi) Develop partnership working with districts, consultants, academic bodies (schools and universities) and other key players to:

increase job skills,

share experience and knowledge; and

encourage interest from young people and students in the service and Hampshire County Council as an employer.

(vii) Encourage managers to identify further opportunities to promote the culture of recognition of staff achievement, give praise and welcome staff feedback, eg through scheme completions/openings, scheme evaluation reviews, the Performance Development Review process and team meetings.

(viii) Ensure greater consistency in the Performance Development Review process as a means of:

stating career development planning;

identifying training appropriate to both the individual and the service;

measuring performance against specific criteria; and monitoring against service or business plans.

(ix) Make better use of exit interview information to formulate better recruitment training, development and reward packages necessary to retain staff.

(x) Develop the framework of a more dynamic structure which is more responsive to business needs and has greater flexibility to accommodate staff career development.

Potential Benefits/Justification of Options

(i) successful delivery of the transport capital programme/Local Transport Plan policies;

(ii) improved productivity and quality of work;

(iii) better service delivery, with greater customer focus;

(iv) better understanding of service outcomes;

(v) more effective management;

(vi) more focus on training, to be linked to identifiable performance criteria;

(vii) greater job satisfaction and self-esteem amongst staff;

(viii) better staff retention and subsequent saving on recruitment costs; and

(ix) more interest and awareness of career options in this service amongst young people/potential employees.

Priority for Action

A number of actions require little expenditure or procedural planning and authorisation. These should therefore be actioned immediately:

(i) addressing competencies within the Organisational Development Strategy;

(ii) establishing a framework for project monitoring and evaluation;

(iii) establishing a mentoring scheme; and

(iv) making better use of exit information.

Other issues may have wider impact across the County Council and/or will take longer to prepare/implement and would take half a year to:

(i) implement the recommendations of the Staff Learning and Development Plan;

(ii) establish partnership working with others;

(iii) examine inhouse culture issues; and

(iv) use the Performance Development Review system for career development.

Two issues will need more substantial planning and Member approval and, whilst not of low importance, would be a longer term process:

(i) introduce greater flexibility to the County Council's employment package; and

(ii) develop a framework of a more dynamic structure.