Regulatory Services

A Self-Assessment Using the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model

1. Background

1.1 As part of the Best Value review, a self-assessment of Regulatory Services using the EFQM Excellence Model was carried out by the Review Team at their meetings on 22 March and 23 April 2002.

1.2 The EFQM Model is used by organisations across Europe and the UK to benchmark their performance and continuously improve. The self assessment is based on examining the organisation's approach to:

Leadership

Policy and strategy

People (its employees)

Partnerships and Resources

Processes

and assessing the results it achieves.

1.3 The model has been adopted as one of the prime tools for a Best Value Review by the County Council.

1.4 The purpose of the self-assessment of Regulatory Services was therefore to provide an initial challenge to the way in which services are managed and organised, and to highlight perceived strengths and potential areas for improvement.

1.5 This report provides a brief summary of the key findings.

2. Key Findings

2.1 An effective service planning process has evolved in recent years providing leadership, direction and clear objectives that are linked both to Corporate aims and individual staff objectives. . Although there is a clear customer focus to service delivery and managers are responsive to external drivers for change, consultation with the public and businesses has been limited and feedback from these sources needs to be built into the planning process. There is good evidence that the service largely achieves its planned objectives.

2.2 Several joint-working and partnership arrangements are in place that enhance service delivery and avoid duplication of effort - for example, the South East Trading Standards Association (SETSA) and the strategic alliance between Hampshire and Kent Scientific Services. A variety of measures are used to monitor service delivery and performance and new requirements are effectively responded to (e.g. the Foods Standards Agency and National Performance Framework for Trading Standards). However, clarification of appropriate key performance indicators and a more systematic approach to performance measurement would be beneficial.

2.3 There is evidence that the new functional structure, implemented in October 2001, has improved service delivery. However, there are perceived dangers from allowing a `silo' effect to emerge between teams that will hinder exchange of information and experience.

2.4 The need for creativity and innovation to generate continuous improvement is seen as vital. However, this is limited due to lack of time. Although the externally assessed quality management system has helped to identify, manage and improve processes and working practices, it is considered there is still scope for additional streamlining to free up more staff time.

2.5 The service recognises, and benefits from, committed and very professional staff. While some consultation has taken place, there is a need for improved and more systematic mechanisms to capture feedback from staff.

2.6 Based on the self-assessment, recommended actions to address the areas for improvement have been proposed by the Review Team. These are:

1. Establish service priorities and delivery methods

2. Develop and implement stakeholder consultation strategy

3. Develop and implement staff consultation strategy

4. Review and streamline all systems and processes

5. Implement improved call management solution for the Advice Service

6. Improve systems for performance management and measurement

7. Introduce ways to generate creativity and innovation

8. Review effectiveness of internal communications

9. Review information requirements

10. Review effectiveness of current and potential partnership arrangements

11. Review management and staff skills and competency requirements

12. Review team management and development requirements

13. Review opportunities for more flexible working practices

14. Review use of resources