|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact: |
(1) David Howells, Director of Corporate Services Tel: 023 8064 4000 Ext 203 (2) Alan House, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Tel: 023 8064 4000 Ext 205 |
|
|
1 |
SUPPORT SERVICES |
|
|
1.1 |
Summary - Aim and scope |
|
|
|
To identify opportunities and action plans for improving the way the Service provides resources to support three key functional areas: |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1.2 |
Approach and methodology |
|
|
1.2.1 |
Each functional area will be reviewed separately by three teams each comprising five core members: |
|
|
|
· HFRA Member representative (who must be a Southampton City Council or Portsmouth City Council representative for the reviews of Financial Services and Information & Communications Technology Services)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2.2 |
These three teams will be accountable to a Steering/Consulting Group comprising: |
|
|
|
· Chairman of the Best Value (Performance Review) Committee · Director of Corporate Services · An `external challenger' · An `internal challenger' (providing a user perspective) · A trades union representative · Performance Review Manager |
|
|
1.2.3 |
The Steering/Consulting Group's role will be to: |
|
|
|
· provide guidance and support to the three review teams to ensure consistency in approach/methodology; |
|
|
|
· provide a robust external and internal `challenge' to the way these support services are provided now and in the future; |
|
|
|
· identify common issues in each review as they emerge and recommend any key overarching actions to address them; |
|
|
|
· ensure that the review is completed on or before 31 March 2004. |
|
|
1.2.4 |
As with all Best Value reviews, the aim will be to establish a process that ensures a process of continuous improvement in the way these services are provided and delivered. The three review teams will be expected to: |
|
|
|
· describe how the support service is currently provided and the typical annual operating costs; |
|
|
|
· assess the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; |
|
|
|
· challenge why and how the individual functions are being provided; and what conclusions can be drawn for support services as a whole. |
|
|
|
· consult with users/customers (and other stakeholders) and analyse satisfaction ratings being achieved; |
|
|
|
· compare how the various functions are performing across a range of relevant indicators; |
|
|
|
· consider the scope for exposing the support service to competition and/or the potential for (further) collaboration with other partners where this might have a positive impact on service quality and cost; |
|
|
|
· make recommendations for improvements; and develop, for approval by the Performance Review Committee, a support service improvement action plan with specific targets and a set of appropriate performance indicators against which the future delivery of the service will monitored. |
|
|
2 |
HFRS VEHICLE WORKSHOPS |
|
|
2.1 |
Summary - Aim and Scope |
|
|
|
To identify opportunities and action plans for improving the way the Service provides vehicle maintenance and repair at its central workshops located at Winnall, Winchester. |
|
|
2.2 |
Approach and methodology |
|
|
2.2.1 |
This functional area will be reviewed by a team comprising 10 core members. · 3 x HFRA Member representatives · Workshops Manager · Workshops Chargehand · Workshops Technician · 3 x User/customer representative (one wholetime, one retained, one officer) · Representative from the Performance Review Department |
|
|
2.2.2 |
This team will be accountable to a Steering/Consulting Group comprising: · Chairman of the Best Value (Performance Review) Committee · Deputy Chief Fire Officer Alan House · 2 external challengers · An 'internal' challenger (providing a user perspective) · A Trade Union representative · Performance Review Manager |
|
|
2.2.3 |
The role of the Steering /Consulting Groups role will be as per paragraph 1.2.3 above. |
|
|
2.2.4 |
As with all Best Value reviews, the aim will be to establish a process of continuous improvement in the way these services are provided and delivered. The 3 review teams will be expected to: |
|
|
|
· Describe how the support service is currently provided and the typical annual operating costs. |
|
|
|
· Assess the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. |
|
|
|
· Challenge why and how the individual functions are being provided and what conclusions can be drawn for support services as a whole. |
|
|
|
· Consult with users/ customers (and other stakeholders) and analyse satisfaction ratings being achieved. |
|
|
|
· Compare how the various functions are performing across a range of relevant indicators. |
|
|
|
· Consider the scope for exposing the support service to competition and/or the potential for (further) collaboration with other partners where this might have a positive impact on service quality and cost |
|
|
|
· Make recommendations for improvements and develop, for approval by the Performance Review Committee, a support service improvement action plan with specific targets and a set of appropriate performance indicators against which the future delivery of the service will be monitored. |
|
|
3 |
European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 |
|
|
3.1 |
The proposals within this report are compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and considered in the light of the Race Relations (amendment) Act 2000. |
|
Recommendations |
|
That the Committee adopts the Terms of Reference |
|
|
Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers |
|
The following documents disclose the facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report. |
|
None |
|
NB The list excludes: |
|
1 Published works |
2 Documents that disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act |
