Archived decisions

Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782

1. Summary

1.1 This report describes the work on the Best Value review of Policy Development which has been undertaken since this Committee approved the scoping reports (Position Statement, Project Brief and Project Plan) on 17 September 2001. In particular, it reports on a challenge workshop and telephone survey of stakeholders, and workshops for managers and staff. The report recommends that the review should focus on six main areas for which options for service improvement should be developed.

2. Scope of `Policy Development'

2.1 This is a cross cutting Best Value review of policy development in the Environment Grouping (Planning and Surveyor's Departments). It covers some of the activities of the Transport Policy Group in the Surveyor's Department and some of the activities of all the groups in the Planning Department. Although referred to as the `Policy Development service' within this document, it is in reality a function and not a discrete service in organisational terms.

2.2 Policy Development can be summarised as preparing policies, advising on their implementation (by other County Council services and external organisations) and monitoring their implementation. The latter, in turn, informs the review of the policies and the preparation of new ones.

2.3 It includes the Hampshire County Structure Plan, the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the Local Transport Plan and its daughter documents, the Waste Management Strategy, the Hampshire Landscape Strategy, Biodiversity Action Plan and other environmental/planning strategies and policies produced by the Environment Grouping.

2.4 The review is assessing the generic processes involved and the overall effectiveness of the way in which policies and plans are developed, monitored and subsequently reviewed. It is not dealing with the merits of individual policies. Thus, it is essentially about process rather than content.

2.5 Policy Development does not include the design/delivery of transport network improvements and maintenance, development control, passenger transport, waste management, cultural heritage (including historic environment), and corporate strategies such as the Urban Living Strategy and Corporate Water Action Plan. All of these are covered by other Best Value or service reviews.

3. Organisation of the Best Value Review

3.1 The review is being progressed by a Core Team of six officers from the Environment Grouping. An Extended Review Team, comprising additionally three members of this Committee (Councillors House, Kimber and Roberts), two officers from other County Council departments and two officers from other local authorities, is helping to steer the review and maintain the external challenge necessary to achieve objectivity, credibility and creativity.

4. External Stakeholders

4.1 At the outset of the review, a large number of external stakeholder organisations was identified. To cope with this, a two stage engagement was adopted. A day-long workshop was held on 26 November 2001 involving around a dozen major stakeholders who have a cross-cutting interest in Policy Development. This event was independently facilitated, with two County Council officers attending purely to provide information as required. There was a good level of discussion with many challenges to the current ways in which policy is developed. A full report on that workshop was presented to the Extended Review Team on 10 December 2001.

4.2 The issues identified by that workshop formed the basis for a telephone survey of about 50 other stakeholder organisations in late January/early February. The organisations included businesses, district/borough councils, adjoining county councils, regional bodies and special interest groups. The survey was undertaken by a specialist external consultancy, Miller Associates. Each telephone interview lasted approximately 15 minutes, enabling a range of issues to be explored.

4.3 Miller Associates presented the results of the survey to a meeting of the Extended Review Team on 7 March 2002. The consultants reported that words most often used by the interviewees to describe the Policy Development service were professional, innovative, proactive, pioneering and leading edge. Interviewees see the service as providing a framework for the long term future of the county and providing strategic direction for district councils. Much of Hampshire County Council's Policy Development is regarded by adjoining county councils as `best practice'. All aspects of the service were felt by interviewees to be equally important, but implementation and monitoring were seen as weaknesses. When asked whether the balance was right between statutory and discretionary policy work, those questioned did not have sufficient information to comment, but the view was expressed that discretionary policies, although valuable, must be implementable.

4.4 Stakeholders recognise that using external consultants to undertake Policy Development work can provide specialist expertise, an independent view, speed and additional staff resources during peak work periods. However, consultants are seen by the stakeholders as being more costly, sometimes difficult to control and less accountable than in-house staff, particularly to Members. One interviewee summed it up as "if it can be done in-house, it should be. I am not convinced consultants can do a better job".

4.5 Consultation during the formulation of policy was regarded as very important by the stakeholders. The consultation process has improved, they felt, but there was still a tendency not to involve organisations soon enough and to leave some out. Policy documents need to use language which is more comprehensible to the layperson, be more condensed and make more use of bullet points. They also should be more explicit about the vision.

4.6 Improvements which stakeholders felt should be made to the Policy Development service were:

(i) integration with local councils;

(ii) integration within the Environment Grouping;

(iii) integration of policies;

(iv) cooperation with adjoining authorities;

(v) increased resources;

(vi) speeding up the process - but quality most important;

(vii) political will to "turn the fine words of policy into actually doing things on the ground";

(viii) monitoring and reviewing; and

(ix) improving effectiveness of consultation.

A summary of Miller Associates' report is attached as Appendix 1.

5. Staff

5.1 To ascertain the views of staff who work on Policy Development, MORI held three workshops in January 2002, each involving six to eight officers who were selected by MORI to be representative of the various grades and disciplines below manager level.

5.2 MORI presented the results of the workshops at the meeting of the Extended Review Team on 7 March 2002. They reported that most staff who took part are positive about working in the Environment Grouping and feel that improvements have been introduced in the last few years on staff training, public consultation and sharing of information between teams. A `silo' culture is still felt to remain, however, which staff believe needs to be broken down by improved cooperation within and between the two departments. Currently, staff feel the Environment Grouping exists in name only and is a `marriage of convenience'.

5.3 Improvements suggested by the staff workshop were (in order of frequency of mention):

(i) more focus by managers on managing and less on policy work, coupled with clear lines of communication and accountability;

(ii) more empowerment of and trust in staff, enabling people to stretch themselves to their maximum ability;

(iii) more technical support and administrative staff, so as to relieve professional staff of this work;

(iv) a directory of employees and their roles;

(v) a local helpdesk for computer problems; and

(vi) a commitment of resources to sustainability.

A summary of the MORI report is attached as Appendix 2.

6. Managers

6.1 Two events have been held so far to elicit the views of managers within the Policy Development service. A half-day workshop for all middle managers took place on 9 January 2002. The main focus of this event was on formulating performance indicators and targets for Policy Development. Identifying such indicators and targets is a key part of any Best Value review and is particularly important in this case, as there is currently only one national Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) for Policy Development and this is slated for abolition.

6.2 The other managers' event involved a selection of middle and senior managers and took place on 5 February 2002. Using the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) self-assessment technique, this day workshop identified managers' perceptions of the strengths and areas for improvements in the Policy Development service.

6.3 The key themes from the day were presented to the Extended Review Team on 7 March 2002. They were:

(i) the need for greater transparency in Policy Development - where and how decisions are made;

(ii) insufficient consideration of whether the service is meeting external customers' expectations and those of the community at large;

(iii) lack of clear leadership for policy development, including particularly the role of Members in this;

(iv) uncertainty on what internal management systems (eg IIP, Quality Assurance) are actually achieving;

(v) opportunities for better liaison between teams;

(vi) the need for systematic, focused monitoring of outcomes from which the organisation can learn; and

(vii) the need for more (ongoing) liaison with stakeholders.

7. Core Issues

7.1 Miller Associates and MORI have both stated that the views expressed (by external stakeholders and staff respectively) about Policy Development in Hampshire County Council are more positive than the average for such consultations. This is, of course, encouraging but is no reason for complacency. Together the engagements with stakeholders, staff and managers have identified a long list of areas for further improvement. Within the resources and time available, the Best Value review cannot formulate proposals to address all the areas for improvement (although they will all be listed in the final report), so it is intended to focus on a limited number of issues.

7.2 To that end, the Extended Review Team identified six such issues on which it proposes that the Best Value review should now concentrate:

(i) joined-up working and internal/external communications, including e-government;

(ii) speeding up the process of preparing policies;

(iii) community engagement, consultation methods and transparency of decision making;

(iv) monitoring and implementation of policy and monitoring of the service's performance;

(v) costs and comparison with others, which leads on to the question of the standard of Policy Development service which the County Council wants (eg a leading, innovating service or an adequate 'follower'); and

(vi) external provision/working in partnership.

7.3 The Extended Review Team identified four other important areas which need to be addressed:

(i) new methods of, and additional resources for, training and development;

(ii) internal organisation, encompassing roles of managers and non-managers, recognition, staffing levels, pay, leadership and the hierarchical culture;

(iii) the number of discretionary policies which are developed; and

(iv) the format of policy documents.

7.4 The Extended Review Team recognises however that the first two extend beyond the Policy Development service. The final report from the Best Value review may offer some suggestions for improvements but the two areas can only be comprehensively addressed at Grouping/corporate level.

7.5 Proposals in respect of (iii) and (iv) in paragraph 7.3 will also be included in the Best Value report, but these are not regarded as key areas for the review.

8. Next Steps

8.1 If this Committee endorses the key issues on which the review should focus (paragraph 7.2 above), then options for improvement in those areas will be drawn up. These options will be discussed by the Extended Review Team and then by this Committee before consultation takes places on them with external stakeholders, staff and managers.

8.2 In the light of the views expressed, the chosen options will be refined and presented to this Committee, after which the review report and improvement plan will be written and published.

Recommendation

That the Best Value review should concentrate on preparing options for improvement in the following areas:

(i) joined-up working and internal/external communications, including e-government;

(ii) speeding up the process of preparing policies;

(iii) community engagement, consultation methods and transparency of decision making;

(iv) monitoring and implementation of policy and monitoring of the service's performance;

(v) costs and comparison with others, which leads on to the question of the standard of Policy Development service which the County Council wants (eg a leading innovating service or an adequate 'follower'); and

(vi) external provision/working in partnership.

7110/SR

APPENDIX 1

Summary of the results of the telephone survey of stakeholder organisations (copied from the report by Miller Associates)

As part of the overall programme of reviews in the County Council, the Policy Development service is currently undergoing a Best Value Review. Miller Associates was commissioned to undertake a telephone survey of professionals in other local authorities, special interest groups, and business representatives. In all cases the work of the Policy Development service impacted in one way or another on the work of those people contacted.

The specific objectives of the telephone survey were to:

(i) find out which aspects of the Policy Development service respondents were most familiar with;

(ii) understand what value respondents placed on different aspects of the service; and

(iii) obtain comment on the Policy Development process itself.

1. Profile of Respondents

· As would be expected, most respondents from other local authorities, at the district and county council level, were familiar with the Policy Development process.

· Those from business and interest groups tended to have a more restricted knowledge, focusing on those aspects of Policy Development which directly affected them.

· The policies which were most familiar to respondents were:

¬ the Structure Plan

¬ the Local Transport Plan

¬ the Minerals and Waste Local Plan

¬ the Waste Management Strategy.

2. Value of Policy Development

· Interviewees all placed a very high value on the work of the policy development service. Hampshire County Council had an extremely high reputation for its policy development work. Adjectives used most often to describe the service included:

¬ professional

¬ innovative

¬ proactive

¬ pioneering

¬ leading edge.

· Respondents from all sectors said that the policy development work undertaken in Hampshire was regarded as `best practice' by other County Councils and was often adopted by them as a model to follow.

· Most respondents were happy with their working relationships with the Environment Grouping. Those from district councils seemed to be more critical, although no serious problems were reported.

· In terms of interpretation of the main value of the service, this differed according to the organisation making the evaluation:

¬ Most people from business and interest groups had a fairly narrow view, and perceived the main value in terms of the direct impact of particular aspects of the service on themselves.

¬ Those from regional bodies, and county and district councils, were better able to see the `bigger picture', and described the main value as setting a framework for the long term future of the County Council.

¬ Representatives from district councils appreciated having a strategic direction which helped them to formulate policies at the local level.

· Where the development of a policy was linked to the allocation of money, this end result was recognised as an important value in itself.

· All aspects of the service, ie:

¬ joint working and partnership to formulate policy

¬ implementation

¬ setting targets

¬ monitoring

were regarded as forming an integrated whole, and all were felt to be equally important.

· The main areas of weakness were identified as being the implementation and monitoring of policies.

· The Local Transport Plan (LTP) was mentioned most often in this regard. It was felt that very little effort had gone into implementing policies designed to promote the use of public transport. Most respondents blamed this on (i) a lack of resources from Central Government and (ii) a lack of political will to implement controversial policies.

· Some thought that the aspirations of the LTP were unrealistic and that a more pragmatic approach towards car versus public transport use should be adopted.

· Areas of policy which were regarded as most important were:

¬ Structure Plan

¬ Local Transport Plan

¬ policies relating to regeneration and strategic partnership

¬ economic development.

· Many people thought that policies coming out of Hampshire had gone on to have national significance. The LTP and the Waste Management Strategy (Project Integra) were mentioned most often. Other important policy areas, where Hampshire was thought to be leading the way on a national basis, were:

¬ landbanks

¬ countryside protection policies

¬ rural transport strategies, ie New Forest

¬ quality of life issues

¬ economic development

¬ public transport/LRT/SHRT/ROMANSE project/community transport.

3. Views on Policy Development

(i) The Process

· Very few people from outside the local government sphere understood the process sufficiently to comment.

· The main concern was about the integration of plans, in terms of:

¬ different draft versions of the same plan

¬ county versus local plans.

(ii) Discretionary Versus Statutory

· Again, very few respondents felt able to give a considered view about this, as they did not know what the respective allocation of resources between statutory and discretionary policies was.

· That said, many thought that discretionary policies were important and were impressed with the range and quality of the discretionary policies which had been developed in the County.

· The assumption was that Hampshire County Council concentrated its efforts on statutory policies, but that sufficient resources remained to develop discretionary policies.

· However, it was felt that resources should not be wasted on discretionary policies which lacked a clear purpose and plan of implementation.

(iii) Use of External Consultants

· The vast majority of people were in favour of the policy development activities remaining in-house, rather than being contracted out.

· The main advantages of this were perceived to be:

¬ cost - consultants were regarded as too expensive;

¬ knowledge and expertise - in-house staff had a wider knowledge base and valuable time could often be lost during the consultants' `learning curve' phase;

¬ accountability of in-house staff; and

¬ control - there was often insufficient management and control exerted over outside consultants which could lead to a poor end product.

· However, it was agreed that there were certain benefits of using consultants, the main ones being:

¬ an independent viewpoint

¬ speed of response

¬ provision of specialist expertise, which may not be available in-house

¬ assistance during peak periods, when in-house resources are stretched.

(iv) Consultation

· All respondents placed a very high value on the opportunity for consultation afforded by the Policy Development service. They very much appreciated the chance to be involved in the process and to voice their points of view.

· Most felt that there was now a greater commitment to consultation within the Environment Grouping. Consultation conducted in connection with the Local Transport Plan and the Waste Management Strategy was regarded as a particular strength.

· However, a number of areas for improvement were identified:

¬ stakeholder meetings should be more focused and kept on track

¬ stakeholder meetings should be held at convenient times

¬ the emphasis should be on involvement and two-way dialogue

¬ the general public should be given a greater involvement

¬ a balance between environmental and business/economic considerations should be sought

¬ consultees should be involved at an early stage and throughout the process

¬ care should be taken to include all statutory consultees in the process (some instances were given of statutory consultees being overlooked)

¬ district officers thought their views should carry more weight.

4. Policy Documents

· Most people thought that policy documents were well presented and professionally produced.

· Respondents recognised that policy documents had to meet certain statutory requirements. However, this often meant that they were rather `stodgy' and difficult to understand.

· Suggested improvements included:

¬ The production of short, easy to read summaries for the benefit of non-professionals. The need to use `layman's' terms was emphasised.

¬ Documents should spell out clearly (i) the rationale behind the policies and (ii) the ultimate goal.

¬ Policies should be implementable, and documents should set out clear targets and define the monitoring and review process to be used.

¬ A summary of all the Policy Development activities (current and forthcoming) should be produced to enable interested parties to keep abreast of the work of the Environment Grouping.

5. Improvements to the Service

In addition to the suggestions for improvements already noted, the following were also put forward:

· Integration with local councils. The Environment Grouping should work more closely with local officers. The importance of inclusion and `buy-in' from district and parish councils was emphasised, both by district council representatives themselves and by those from other sectors.

· Integration within the Environment Grouping. Some respondents felt that there was insufficient synergy between the different departments, leading to a lack of coordination and communication.

· Cooperation with adjoining authorities. This situation was thought to have improved, but the general view was that it was important for closer working relationships to continue.

· Increased resources. Several people thought that the Environment Grouping should recruit more skilled staff to cope with the pressure of work. However, they accepted that this was very difficult, especially (i) in the South East and (ii) because of the uncertainty introduced by the recent Green Paper.

· Speeding up the process. Many people mentioned that the policy development process was very protracted. This was especially true for the Structure Plan. However, the general feeling was that speed was much less important than quality and that the process should not be speeded up at the expense of a comprehensive, thorough, all-inclusive consultation process.

· Political will. It was felt that the stumbling block, in terms of implementation of some policies, was that politicians, at the local and the national level, were unwilling to `put their necks on the line' and risk their livelihoods by backing the introduction of controversial policies which may be unpopular with the electorate. Respondents would welcome a more courageous approach in order, in the words of one interviewee, to `turn the fine words of policy into actually doing things on the ground'.

Finally, interviewees were asked to provide an indication of how important they thought it was for the service to improve on each of nine areas identified during the stakeholder workshop. Given the findings already presented, it will come as no surprise to find that the three areas where interviewees felt it was most important to improve were: (i) ensuring policies are monitored and reviewed; (ii) achieving greater integration and coordination of policy making; and (iii) improving effectiveness of consultation.

APPENDIX 2

SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AT THE STAFF WORKSHOPS

(extract from the MORI report)

Key Findings and Implications

It is very positive that the majority of staff enjoy working in the Environment Group, feel they understand their individual role and feel that the work they do is valuable.

It is also encouraging that employees feel that certain aspects have been improving in recent years, such as the focus on consultation and greater effort to communicate effectively.

During the discussions we encouraged members of staff to tell us their ideas on how things should be improved, and this gives some further indications of areas to concentrate on:

· Silo-working: break down barriers within Environment Group and between departments within the County Council, possibly via greater commitment to shadowing, mentoring as well as formal secondments.

· Further concentrate on communications, eg via electronic newsletters, basic organisational charts and telephone directories - newer members of staff do not always feel they know who is who or who they should consult with internally.

· Training issues - Are the right people going on the right technical courses? Are these courses even available?

· Staff retention - Ensure new graduate recruits are stimulated enough to want to stay and look at why longer serving members of staff may leave. Can they be valued more as experienced professionals or can there be more opportunity to progress within the organisation?

· Best Value - Continue to communicate clearly its relevance and importance in improving services. Communicating to staff the outcomes of this consultation exercise and any changes made as a result will be an important step in this process.

Main Findings

Working in Environment Group

Employees are positive about working in the Environment Group as well as the quality of the work that is carried out. When asked, most groups initially respond enthusiastically and mention favourable aspects, whereas often employees can be cynical about where they work. Positive aspects include:

· Working hours, conditions, flexibility, benefits.

· Working environment and colleagues.

· Public sector ethos and sense of doing useful work

There is also the feeling that working practices have improved over recent years, particularly with regard to training, public consultation and communications issues and that management have recently put greater effort into these issues.

At the same time, there are a number of criticisms:

· Career progression, as management posts may not be available.

· Bureaucracy.

· Volume of work - there is a feeling that there is no `slack' in the system any more.

· Pay.

· Administrative support.

· Layout of the office - no rooms for informal meetings/sharing of knowledge.

Recruitment and Staff Retention

As mentioned earlier, the consensus is that there is no longer any spare capacity within the Environment Group: many feel that their particular teams would benefit from recruitment of support staff, either administrative support or technical support.

Some feel that new recruits can be over-qualified for the work that is available, for example graduates are recruited to fill a post that is mainly administrative - "Graduates as photo-copiers".

It is felt that the negative aspects of working for the Environment Group mentioned earlier - pay, admin support and career progression - can lead to problems of staff retention, with some employees leaving, particularly young graduates after a year or so, either for posts in other authorities or in the private sector. It is generally agreed that a local authority may not be able to offer the same fast track environment and pay as the private sector, but that the Environment Group should look carefully at the reasons why some people move to other local authorities.

Team Working

As mentioned earlier, and as is often the case, people are positive about their colleagues in the Environment Group. At the same time, it is felt that the Environment Group as a whole does not function as well as it might, and that teams are not as effective as they could be. There are a number of instances of:

· Working in isolation as individuals: not being briefed at the beginning of a project but just being given written guidance, work not being reviewed frequently enough.

· Working in isolation as teams: newer recruits in particular complain that they do not necessarily know who to consult within the Environment Group. All agree that there needs to be greater effort to work out linkages, for example between different Transport Policy teams, as well as between, say, Transport Policy, Strategy and Research & Intelligence.

· Working in isolation as a department: a couple of examples are given of projects carried out by the Environment Group being duplicated in other departments in the County Council.

These problems are felt more acutely by new recruits, more experienced members of staff may have developed their own informal networks to keep in touch with other teams and departments.

The consensus opinion is that too many individuals and teams within the Environment Group operate in `silos' and that more work needs to be done to break these down and increase knowledge-sharing and team working within the Group and across departments. This is a common criticism MORI often finds in its work among staff, and one which is difficult to resolve. Encouragingly, there is the enthusiasm and commitment among junior staff to try to break down the silos, and staff also feel that management are currently making progress in this respect. Specific suggestions for improving team working include:

· Shadowing

· Mentoring

· Secondments

· Various communications - see later section of the report

Environment Grouping: a Marriage of Convenience?

Related to the need to break down barriers between different teams is the perception that the Environment Group itself is an artificial alliance:

Planning and Surveyors have two very different cultures under one umbrella, which have been brought together in a marriage of convenience.

Most agree with this sentiment, and clearly there needs to be continued effort to create a single identity for the Environment Group as a whole.

Role in Policy Development

Encouragingly, almost all employees feel they have a very good understanding of their role in policy development, from collecting primary data, data analysis to drafting policies and strategies. There seems to be a difference by grade and length of service, while some longer serving staff feel they have a role in developing policy, more junior staff tend to feel their role centres more on drafting and implementation. There is a feeling that there should be greater scope for `bottom up' rather than `top down' policy development. Similarly, some feel they are not trusted sufficiently to carry out their day-to-day activities unsupervised: "every letter I write gets checked by 3 managers". The other suggestion - linked to earlier comments about team working - is that employees should be made more aware of the broader role their policies have within the Environment Group as a whole.

Professional Judgement vs Political Pressure

Some, generally longer serving members of staff who had more direct contact with councillors, highlighted some tension between their judgement as professionals and pressures put on them by politicians. There was no consensus as to how this tension could be alleviated, nor whether the Cabinet system would improve or make this worse.

Professionals vs Managers

A number of the more experienced members of staff highlighted a tension between the role of professionals and managers within the Environment Group. There was a feeling that at a certain point in their career, in order to be better paid, they had to take on line management responsibility, and it was argued that this should not be the case: they should be equally valued as experienced professionals. It was also argued that this led to reluctant managers who had taken on management responsibilities in order to progress in their career, whereas managers should be motivated to line manage first and foremost.

Training and Personal Development

All were aware that Personal Development Reviews (PDRs) should take place on an annual basis, with reviews taking place after six months. The majority felt that these do take place to that timetable and that there had been a fairly recent drive to ensure these happen.

There were some positive examples of employees being supported in their personal development, for example via sponsorship for post-graduate study, and there was also a lot of support for the principle of secondments, mentoring and shadowing. It was felt that more could be done by management to support this, from promoting formal secondments to allowing new recruits to shadow middle- and senior- management for the occasional meeting to broaden their understanding of the Environment Group as a whole.

In terms of career development, there is a perception that it is difficult to progress towards middle and senior management as vacant posts are rarely available. For this reason, some members of staff feel they have to look outside the organisation to further their career.

Training

There is a perception that the assessment of training needs has improved recently "Line managers are beginning to be more proactive", and some attend training courses, both internal and external, once they define a training need with their line manager.

The majority are fairly positive about basic IT training, for example courses on Word etc, but there is a feeling that more technical course such as GIS training may not be as effective or that they may not always target the right people. Staff feel that the training courses provided most readily, eg At the Sharp End or courses provided by Hampshire Training Solutions, are often not tailored enough to their specialist needs.

There is also a perception that the budget for training is very low (£30-£50 per staff member per annum), which makes external courses out of reach. At the same time, staff do not give examples of line managers turning down a request for training due to budget, more often it is that they are unable to find a suitable specialist course.

Consultation

There is a feeling that consultation is one of the areas that has improved most in recent years "We used to say, here's the scheme, like it or lump it, now we do consult on a draft". While there is some confusion as to the appropriateness of different techniques and technical terms such as focus groups, citizens' panels etc., employees clearly identify some of the most challenging aspects of consultation, for example how to measure the success of consultation, the need to tailor techniques for different consultations.

Some do feel that there may be a training gap in this respect, which is not addressed by At the Sharp End, which is felt to be geared towards employees in a Call Centre. Some give examples of receiving no training at all on chairing or speaking at public meetings or public consultations, where they typically have to deal with critical and hostile members of the public.

Communications

Downwards Communication

Employees are often critical of downwards communication in large organisations. In the Environment Group, there is a sense that staff are aware of `Big picture' issues, such as corporate policies and the Structure Plan, and are aware of information relating to the particular area on which they work, but are not aware of the broader `mid ranking' initiatives and policy areas. At the same time, staff do not want to be overloaded with communication about all the different policies and strategies at the County Council.

Lateral Communication

While members of staff did not make many overt comments about lateral communication, its importance is apparent from to earlier comments about silo-working and the importance of continued focus on encouraging teams to communicate with each other. Some felt at the moment that team meetings were too general, included too many members of staff (c15) and took too long to be a useful means of communication.

Upward Communication

As is almost always the case, people are more positive about communicating with their immediate line managers than they are with communicating with senior managements. There is little consensus: some feel that senior management are very open, while others complain of rigid hierarchies.

Communications - Suggestions for Improvement

The following suggestions are made for improving communications within Environment Group

· HantsNet - awareness is high, and people are positive about the principle, but feel it needs to be revamped to make it more user-friendly and with better search facilities.

· Telephone Directory - Introduce a telephone directory and keep up-to-date

· Organisational chart - which shows the roles and areas of interest of key members of staff

· Electronic newsletters

Best Value

As MORI often finds, there is a lot of cynicism about Best Value as well as confusion as to what it means and the impact it has on members of staff's daily working lives as well as the service that is provided. Best Value is equated to CCT - "It was called something else a few years ago, I can't remember" - or thought to be a "management exercise", "an exercise in ticking boxes" or "another boring layer of admin". There is a perception that Best Value may have relevance for under-performing local authorities, and that any improvements would have occurred regardless of Best Value.

While it will be difficult to counter such ingrained cynicism, one important factor would be to communicate clearly the results of this staff consultation exercise, in parallel with consultations among managers and stakeholders, and inform staff of changes that have come about as part of the review.

©MORI 16108/Ian McDonald

March 2002