Comments on: Q. When is an agency not an agency? http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/?source=rss Institute for Government Blog Tue, 08 May 2012 17:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Martin Clifford http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Martin Clifford Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:43:13 +0000 http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=130#comment-17 I welcome a typology that tries to navigate through the ‘tangled landscape’ of government entities. Here in Western Australia the same issues arise, normally the product of an ad hoc approach to the creation of entities given the demands (read politics) of the day and a lack of discipline in applying proper nomenclature. The confusion is often deep-rooted as over time organizations can develop into entities that were not as intended, including waywardness in institutional structure and performance. Clearly, the linkage to clarity on performance expectations would go a great way towards gaining proper understanding of institutional form to meet outcomes and impacts, but indicators can be manipulated and vague. I like the approach that by getting back to basics – following an established and accepted typology on institutional form, we create a stronger foundation to build government entities. I agree that the issues have far reaching implications; lack of clarity is a disservice to our communities. I welcome a typology that tries to navigate through the ‘tangled landscape’ of government entities. Here in Western Australia the same issues arise, normally the product of an ad hoc approach to the creation of entities given the demands (read politics) of the day and a lack of discipline in applying proper nomenclature. The confusion is often deep-rooted as over time organizations can develop into entities that were not as intended, including waywardness in institutional structure and performance. Clearly, the linkage to clarity on performance expectations would go a great way towards gaining proper understanding of institutional form to meet outcomes and impacts, but indicators can be manipulated and vague. I like the approach that by getting back to basics – following an established and accepted typology on institutional form, we create a stronger foundation to build government entities. I agree that the issues have far reaching implications; lack of clarity is a disservice to our communities.

]]> By: Jill Rutter http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Jill Rutter Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:55:40 +0000 http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=130#comment-16 Wendy -- thanks. Good points. We do see the need for a much more coherent and consistent approach to performance management - one of the things that we would look to the Centre of Excellence/ expertise to do - and the new taxonomy should allow similar performance management frameworks for the same sort of bodies -- but also fit for purpose (there is a quote in the report about applying a template for a multi million/billion pound organisation to a three person outfit and that clearly makes no sense.) The regular reviews looking at both sides of the relationship would also check that sensible performance management was in place. We have a separate project on accountabilities at the moment and will feed in your comments to colleagues leading that. There seems to be a bit of a paradox. When we presented our findings to the Public Chairs Forum, the chairs said they felt MORE accountable than civil servants (I think Barbara Young commented when she was CEO of the Env Agency that she was accountable to "everyone") - and there are multiple accountability routes - but this does not seem to be enough to satisfy people who are sceptical about the legitimacy of putting important government functions away from Ministerial control. Wendy — thanks. Good points.

We do see the need for a much more coherent and consistent approach to performance management – one of the things that we would look to the Centre of Excellence/ expertise to do – and the new taxonomy should allow similar performance management frameworks for the same sort of bodies — but also fit for purpose (there is a quote in the report about applying a template for a multi million/billion pound organisation to a three person outfit and that clearly makes no sense.)

The regular reviews looking at both sides of the relationship would also check that sensible performance management was in place.

We have a separate project on accountabilities at the moment and will feed in your comments to colleagues leading that.

There seems to be a bit of a paradox. When we presented our findings to the Public Chairs Forum, the chairs said they felt MORE accountable than civil servants (I think Barbara Young commented when she was CEO of the Env Agency that she was accountable to “everyone”) – and there are multiple accountability routes – but this does not seem to be enough to satisfy people who are sceptical about the legitimacy of putting important government functions away from Ministerial control.

]]> By: Wendy Matthews http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Wendy Matthews Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:57:48 +0000 http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=130#comment-15 I think this is very interesting report - but perhaps more could have been made of the performance management issues. If there is to be better integration of policy and delivery across bodies/departments you could argue there need to be shared performance management frameworks across clusters of bodies - so that where they are all relevant to specific outcomes they can pull together rather than be pulled apart by conflicting institutional targets - the PSA framework started to do this, but did not carry through to institutional management arrangements. Frameworks linked to departments reinforce silos. Shared performance management frameworks could also be supported by shared knowledge management strategies - to increase a more effective use of the collective evidence base and institutional/performance data to improve delivery. The forthcoming UKCES review on integrated employment and skills is looking at some of these issues in that part of the landscape. Also - I think the accountability issues have been underplayed in some cases - many NDPBs would argue they have very onerous accountability arrangements which generated a heavy administrative burden. For example the Regional Development Agencies had to report on delivery against the PSA framework, delivery against a departmental tasking framework, had independent audit and inspection from the NAO, and was also scrutinised by the Regional Assembly and latterly Regional Select Committees - the NAO acknowledged these issues in their review of RDA accountability. I think this is very interesting report – but perhaps more could have been made of the performance management issues. If there is to be better integration of policy and delivery across bodies/departments you could argue there need to be shared performance management frameworks across clusters of bodies – so that where they are all relevant to specific outcomes they can pull together rather than be pulled apart by conflicting institutional targets – the PSA framework started to do this, but did not carry through to institutional management arrangements. Frameworks linked to departments reinforce silos. Shared performance management frameworks could also be supported by shared knowledge management strategies – to increase a more effective use of the collective evidence base and institutional/performance data to improve delivery. The forthcoming UKCES review on integrated employment and skills is looking at some of these issues in that part of the landscape. Also – I think the accountability issues have been underplayed in some cases – many NDPBs would argue they have very onerous accountability arrangements which generated a heavy administrative burden. For example the Regional Development Agencies had to report on delivery against the PSA framework, delivery against a departmental tasking framework, had independent audit and inspection from the NAO, and was also scrutinised by the Regional Assembly and latterly Regional Select Committees – the NAO acknowledged these issues in their review of RDA accountability.

]]> By: Jill Rutter http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Jill Rutter Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:02:15 +0000 http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=130#comment-14 Just received an email from someone who has pointed out that the NZ Crown Entities Act in 2004 took a big bang approach to reorganising the status of their ALBs. A slightly different categorisation but same general principles. To see more check out http://www.mch.govt.nz/agency/boards/documents/crowngovernance/Crown-Entities-Act-2004-Overview.pdf Just received an email from someone who has pointed out that the NZ Crown Entities Act in 2004 took a big bang approach to reorganising the status of their ALBs. A slightly different categorisation but same general principles. To see more check out
http://www.mch.govt.nz/agency/boards/documents/crowngovernance/Crown-Entities-Act-2004-Overview.pdf

]]>