This review is a direct outcome of the Senior Management Review conducted during 2004/05. Through consultation with all members of the Departmental Management Team (DMT) and the appropriate Senior Management Group (SMG) members a range of options were identified, coupled with issues, barriers to effective working and what works well.

The identified barriers to effective working that are directly relevant to this review are:

· Lack of joined up and cross branch working, linking to silo working, such as Transport and the use of consultancy services

· Lack of communications regarding work undertaken in areas and area office staff not being aware of it until approaches received from the general public or Members

· Local delivery versus efficiency and needing to ensure the right balance at a local level

· Staff feel remote in area offices, how can we ensure staff feel part of the department when not based in Winchester

· Lack of resourcing and increasing demand within the same levels, which links to key problems with recruitment and retention and having to make best fit with what is available

· Political barriers in some areas requiring sensitive and careful management

· Needing to increase stakeholder engagement at a local level to foster greater understanding both ways

· Not fully developed customer focus and community engagement

Set against the barriers are the key areas that were identified that work well:

· Skilled teams in specialist roles

· Commitment and enthusiasm of staff within the department

· Communications within branches is better then across branches

· Good mix of thinkers and doers at SMG level

· Management Branch are well placed to communicate with the public and Members due to local presence

DMT determined a key outcome of the SMG review was a need to examine the balance of service delivery at a local level compared with that delivered from the centre in Winchester. Consideration should be given to expanding the role of Chief Engineers beyond that of Highways Management at a local level. There is a need to examine the barriers identified above and how these could be overcome.

3 Scope

3.1 Inclusions

Service areas included within the review are:

· Area Chief Engineers (East, West, South, North)

· Chief Engineer Traffic Management and Road Safety

· Chief Engineer Headquarters

· Transport Policy

· Passenger Transport (Strategy and Implementation)

· Transport Implementation

· Intelligent Transport Systems

Other areas may become encompassed in the review if they have a relevant front line interface.

3.2 Exclusions

The following strands within the Environment Department are not included:

· Passenger Transport (Community Transport, Home to School Transport and Passenger Transport Operations)

· Natural Resources Branch

· Performance and Innovation Branch

· Spatial Strategy, Minerals and Waste Planning and Strategy Co-ordination

· Waste Management

· Engineering Consultancy and Landscape, Planning and Heritage

· South Hampshire Rapid Transport Project

· W.S.Atkins Partnership, Raynesway Partnership and Area 3 Commission

Engineering Consultancy and W.S.Atkins are not included in the review but may impact on area delivery considerations

4 Aim

To evaluate options and determine the optimal service delivery model to meet the requirement for efficiency and co-ordinated activity in localities, reflecting departmental policies and priorities

5 Objectives

The following objectives for the review were agreed by DMT 7 February 2005:

· To improve efficiency, linked to Gershon and the Comprehensive Performance Assessment use of resources

· Identify synergies of service

· Improve technical interfaces

· Rationalise overheads (management, administration and offices)

· Improve public/community engagement to strengthen Hampshire County Council's interface with the public

6 Approach

There are three strands to the review:

· Services delivered at a local level

· Interfaces

· Accommodation

The review will be conducted by:

· Identifying all service strands delivered at a local and central level currently within the service areas identified as included in scope. This will include accommodation, interfaces and the level of resources required to support each service strand

· Utilising the output from the SMG review and undertaking further consultation with SMG members as required

· Understanding the business context through SWOT, PEST and Stakeholder analysis

· Identifying a range of suitable organisations against which to compare performance

· Develop an appropriate questionnaire in order that structured research can be undertaken to inform the review

· Following the completion of the research identify which of the organisations it would be appropriate to visit to supplement and further inform the review

· Understand current actual and perceived performance from internal indicators and external surveys undertaken

· Identify stakeholders and determine further consultation required. This will include identifying who and how to consult to inform the review from an external perspective

· Collate the information and collectively determine options, including cost benefit analysis, for the future structure of transport and highways management within the department.

· Present a report to DMT for consideration by the end of October 2005.

7 Deliverables

The outcome will identify the optimal model for delivering services at a local level encompassing the above objectives

8 Constraints/Dependencies

· Working within departmental policies and priorities.

· Availability of staff time to support the review within the required timeframe

· Commitment from staff to ensure the review retains momentum to complete within the required timeframe

· Availability, accuracy and completeness of information to support the review

· Engagement from other organisations with the research to inform the development of options

9 Interfaces

Stakeholders

The service has many current stakeholders, identified with the Delivery Plans as:

Internal:

· All strands of the Environment Department

· Other Hampshire County Council Departments, particularly Recreation and Heritage Rights of Way

· County Council Members

External:

· District/Borough/City and Parish Councils

· District/Borough/City Council Members

· External contractors such as Raynesway Construction Southern, W S Atkins and Area 3 Commission

· Public

· Voluntary Organisations

· Local and National representative bodies and pressure groups

· Government departments such as Department for Transport, Government Office for the South East, South East England Regional Assembly, Strategic Rail Authority

There will be a need to identify which are key interfaces with whom direct consultation will be required. This will gauge perception, identify issues and what works well to further inform the review.

Other Reviews

There are other reviews and projects currently underway that will inform and/or impact on this work:

· Review of Ashburton Court

· Highways Management process review of the Term Maintenance Contract with Raynesway Construction Southern

· Highways Management administration review

· Review of Customer Interface

· Corporate Contact Centre work

· Traffic Management Review

10 Risks

· That key staff are not engaged in the process

· That other organisations are not available or willing to contribute to the review

· That options proposed are not acceptable to DMT

· Budget pressures may comprise the ability to realise some outcomes of the review

11 Issues

· That all staff involved in the work are briefed about the review prior to the work commencing

· All staff consultation and briefings will be undertaken by the Department through the Project Sponsor (The Director of Environment)

· Operational priorities may compromise the ability to achieve the project plan and resource availability

12 Project Planning

Attached at Appendix 1 is an outline project plan for discussion

13 Link to Corporate Objectives

Aim 2 Stewardship of the environment

Aim 4 Building strong and safe communities

Aim 5 Improving services

Aim 6 Developing staff and councillors

14 Timescales

Final report identifying options for the way forward, including an Action Plan, by end October 2005

The review will need to dovetail with the review of Ashburton Court offices

15 Estimated costs

Treasurer's Consultancy support will be required during quarters one, two and three of 2005/06. Quarter one days have been allocated at 20. Days for the remaining quarters will be agreed depending on the requirements of the review

This content is archived

1

2 Background