“London councils merge education departments in bid to slash costs” “Slim down London’s costly toytown councils”
So ran the headlines, as Hammersmith & Fulham and Westminster councils announced their intention to merge their education departments. Most of the talk has been of cutting costs and increased risk, but this development heralds a much more exciting era in which councils around the country are taking the opportunity to radically re-think their role in meeting local need.
Joint commissioning has already uncovered significant opportunities for reducing cost and improving outcomes for children and young people. The Total Place pilots have found more, and even authorities that have not been part of the pilots are beginning to explore ways in which they can share delivery of key services with their neighbours (especially where they are relatively recently separated – such as unitaries and counties).
This thinking and activity have led to heads of children’s services exploring a number of key questions such as:
- What are the things that we must continue to keep close to us and fully control what happens, when and how?
- Where are those areas where we would be happy to share what we currently do with related authorities, organisations and partners and through this achieve efficiency and/or cost savings?
- What are those things that are ripe for exploring outsourcing or shared service opportunities as there may well be organisations out there where they will potentially make a better job of it, be that in terms of value for money or efficiency?
There are plenty of models on the market, encouraging a fresh look at what is core, what is critical and what needs to be under close control. The key however is to use these models to fully explore the widest range of options that could and should be considered within this thought process. It is not just ‘keep v outsource’, it could be ‘shall we enter into a partnership?’; ‘is this a soft or hard partnership situation?’; ‘should we form a cooperative?’; ‘what is the difference between a mutual and a cooperative?’; ‘is this an ‘open innovation’ opportunity?’. The options are both numerous and complex.
But of course this shift in the way organisations arrange themselves and where they focus is far from new. Apple invent new ‘cool design’ but do not always develop the technology behind their products, and they certainly don’t manufacturer them. Merrill Lynch undertakes no fund management, Xerox do not manufacture products and Transport for London outsources all building and maintenance – a state of affairs once considered unthinkable.
The common thread in all these examples is the radical thinking and action that went behind what was a fundamental re-look at what to keep central, where to partner and what to divest or outsource. And of course the answer is not as simple as what is critical versus what is not. It may be that the things that are critical are those where the maximum control, efficiency and value for money can be achieved by someone else, potentially within a tightly managed relationship with an expert provider. It is akin to having a host of electrons spinning around searching for opportunities to form new, exciting and complex molecules, whilst retaining a robust nucleus at the centre.
Some will develop naturally, and some will require more effort. Some will also form new, exciting and complex bodies previously unseen. All that is certain is that the public service landscape will look very different in the future and now is exactly the right time to radically re-think the way support is currently delivered and what is the best option to achieve the greatest outcomes for all.
