Agenda item

The panel to undertake gateway review 3.

(Paperwork to follow to panel members)

The Service Manager, Human Resources introduced her presentation by emphasising that the service plan was not seen as a static document.  Since the Gateway 2 stage, there had been a significant change to the plan to reflect the council tenants’ “no vote” to stock transfer.  This had removed an area of work from the service plan.  However, the council’s various statutory duties remained and, given the level of resources within the section, it would be necessary to alter the approach to delivering those obligations by streamlining the work within the section.

The Service Manager explained that anomalies identified during the Gateway 2 stage had been addressed and figures within the plan updated accordingly.

Going through the Gateway 3 checklist, the Service Manager drew attention to the improved position regarding sickness absences and that the current figure of 7.18 days absence averaged out per employee was a favourable comparator against benchmark figures.  However, she warned that these figures would not generate Gershon savings in the future.

In relation to check list point 10 (whether support services had been challenged with service areas in order to evidence value for money), the Service Manager for Finance & Risk Management stated that managers will be tasked to challenge these figures in terms of the service they received.  These charges would be made on a monthly basis instead of yearly in order to add transparency to the process. It was too early for some managers to evidence this ahead of the complete introduction of time recording for their service areas and this was the case with the HR service at present.

During discussion, several points of concern were raised: a member referred to the risk posed by workloads exceeding capacity.  He expressed strong concern that the potential impact could be very high on employees’ health and stress levels which could, in turn, impact on sickness absences.  The service manager was asked what steps were being taken to manage this risk and monitor it.  The Service Manager explained that individual’s workloads were managed through supervision to ensure the section was delivering what it needed to.  Through structured prioritisation, workloads were being streamlined.  The section would always need to respond to critical areas of work, such as disciplinary cases.  Efficiency measures were being explored and cited, by way of example, the introduction of an on-line recruitment system.

In response to a point raised about the outcome of the recent restructure creating an extension of certain services, the Strategic Director acknowledged that any change required the monitoring of outcomes.  Service Managers needed to be clear on where their focus should be.  It necessitated looking across the whole council to ensure we have the capacity to deliver, knowing what to deliver, and increasing the skills of managers and their teams accordingly.

A question was also raised on the budget provision in relation to the unions.  The Service Manager explained what this cost covered, and in response to concerns expressed about the rising cost, she agreed to keep this under review.

Conclusion:

Having reviewed the 2007/08 amended service plan for Human Resources and Corporate Employee Services against the Gateway 3 checklist, the Engagement DSP found that:

1.         All comments from Gateway 2 had been taken into account and outstanding issues resolved.

2.         All budgetary information had been completed.

3.         All performance development reviews has been undertaken with staff and any cost implications arising from these had been incorporated into the service plan.

4.         The service plan now identified Value for Money (balanced scorecard) and benchmarking information.

5.         Gershon efficiency savings in relation to improved sickness absence figures had been reflected in the budget.

6.         The service plan had not been amended to take into consideration the proposed changes to the 2007/08 budget but that the service manager would be addressing this.

7.         Review of fees and charges was not relevant to this service area.

8.         Small areas for incremental savings had been identified and incorporated into the service plan.

9.         There were no major procurement proposals for inclusion in the service plan.

10.     Challenging support service charges in order to evidence value for money had not yet taken place.