Working to make government more effective

Comment

Department for Education Review: A blueprint for transformation?

A week after we published our report Transforming Whitehall the DfE review provides a radical blueprint for departmental transformation. How does it stack up against the success factors, risks and challenges we identified in our report? Could this be a pathfinder for the radical reinvention of Whitehall? Does it suggest that lasting reform is more likely to be driven by departments rather than the Cabinet Office?

The Civil Service Reform Plan published in June included a number of actions that we felt could be a catalyst for lasting reform. The DfE review is the first of those ideas that has been taken to the next stage. Back in June we said: “[it] could become a practical way to shed much needed light on the vexed question ‘what are the core functions of the Civil Service? … [and] create an ambitious blueprint of the department of the future”. On the evidence of this review the Department for Education could be on track to create that blueprint. It is a striking report that seems to apply lessons from previous efforts to transform departments in Whitehall. They are setting a clear direction. In stretching their target for savings to 50% in administration costs they are anticipating the inevitable further reductions that the next spending review will require. They have made time to grapple with the fundamental questions of what the core functions of the department are, and how best they should be carried out. This review should dramatically increase the likelihood that their savings will be sustainable and leave the department fit for purpose. It’s one thing to be ambitious – but are the DfE leading the change in a way that gives ground for optimism that it can be successfully implemented? They give themselves a good chance by addressing many of the factors for successful change in Whitehall that we uncovered in our recent report Transforming Whitehall:
  • The DfE review includes powerful, positive reasons to change. While there are big implications for downsizing, this is a strong statement about how the department should improve and work differently in future, not a programme of cuts with no vision.
  • They see directorate and agency leaders as the shapers and implementers of the next stage of detailed planning. This should create a wider and stronger coalition in the department and increase commitment as well as staff engagement.
  • But, probably most important, there is a strong sense of ownership of this plan from the permanent secretary and – seemingly – the secretary of state. Alignment between the Civil Service and ministerial leadership is essential for sustained change.
  The review tackles some fundamental issues which departments often struggle with, and avoids some common pitfalls:
  • Change culture and behaviour. They see a changed culture as the single biggest thing that will make the department more effective. They identify four significant changes to the way they work that are necessary to adjust their culture.
  • Prioritise and stop doing things. They are carrying out a ‘stop work’ exercise. And propose termly exercises reviewing priorities, defining end dates for work and stopping it. They will do this jointly with ministers.
  • Improve capability. There is a strong focus on building capability, and strengthening line management. An array of strategies, plans and processes are to be developed. They will need excellent support from their HR function and additional expert advice.
  • Improve management information. They are pursuing both improvements in systems and the way they work in order to create a single version of the truth.
  • They reject the fashionable, but often unsuccessful option of central flexible resource pool. Instead looking to introduce flexible deployment for policy work within directorates whilst creating some central capacity to undertake cross directorate working.
  • Avoid unnecessary change. They have steered clear of fiddling around with the directorate structure.
  There is welcome innovation in policy making. The review addresses several of the recommendations in our report Making Policy Better. Some of the important changes they highlight are:
  • Getting a more strategic grip on policy prioritisation – integration of private office and strategy roles including the capacity to undertake projects which cut across directorate boundaries.
  • Recognising need to engage ministers in a different way – involving them earlier in the policy process – and using submissions to record decisions at the end of the process, rather than to drive the process of getting them.
  • Recognising the importance of knowledge management.
  • Integrating analysts in a better way.
  There are three early challenges for the department:
  • Ministers need to give the department space to focus on these long term strategic goals rather than responding to day to day crises or piling on new priorities.
  • The permanent secretary and the whole of the senior leadership team must lead by example and demonstrate their collective commitment to this. We recommend pushing responsibility down to director and deputy director roles as far as possible to build energy, ownership and commitment to the direction of travel.
  • Cutting the corporate overhead is necessary. But be wary of mistakes made by other departments who cut teams like internal communications and HR which are critical in taking staff, managers and leaders through this process. And they will be heavily dependent on their finance capability to develop much better management information.
  Change on this scale is inevitably unsettling for staff in the department. It places yet more demands on the increasingly stretched senior leaders. But eventually staff might well come to thank their leaders for anticipating further cuts in the next spending review and short-circuiting months and even years of uncertainty.

Related content