UN asked to help create a ‘level playing field’ for co-operatives

Posted on 03/11/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

There is a growing call from the mutuals and co-operatives sector for the business environment to be made friendlier to enable them to thrive.

That message has now made it to the United Nations, where Dame Pauline Green, President of the International Co-operative Alliance, called for nations to take co-operatives much more seriously. 

As Co-Operative News reports, Dame Pauline said, “..member-owned co-operatives are a serious business model – with scale. And so, co-operatives are asking that the specific and unique legal and financial framework of a co-operative is fully acknowledged and recognised in public policy and regulation.”

“Co-operatives are asking that there should be a greater diversification of the global economy, to ensure a level playing field for the member-owned model of business.”

Dame Pauline said the sector’s “commitment to our democratic and social agenda is built on a sound and successful member-owned business model” that means operatives can compete successfully in the marketplace with other forms of business.

Leave a comment

Posted in business environment, Campaign4Change, mutualisation, mutuals, social economy, social enterprise

Tagged , , , , ,

Time to move beyond ‘Paint it Black’

Posted on 01/11/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

I can see what Craig Dearden-Philips is getting at in this blog, but I’m not sure it needs to paint such a dire economic picture. There is too much talking down of the economy. No-one will spend any money because everyone from politicians to forecasters to social entrepreneurs to journalists  is trying to out-do each other and paint the blackest picture. There’s no leadership there – just followship.

Dearden-Philips argues that “a crisis of the sort we’re probably heading into will, one way or another, make it far more attractive to reinvent than cut back services. Careers – political and professional – will not survive if slash’n’burn is the modus operandi. For those of us who have long been advocating a reinvention of public services this could end up being, our moment.

“So spin-outs, community-based services, co-ops, innovations that allow decommissioning – all of these things could have a political attractiveness that is currently missing. The sadness is that it will take things getting really quite catastrophically bad before that happens.”

He’s right that spin-outs, community-based services, co-ops, innovations that allow decommissioning do need the right landscape to thrive. But how many employees will feel like spinning out when the picture is painted this black? Better to cling on ‘inside’ than venture – an appropriate word – out and create something new. Employee ownership? Out there? No thanks. I’ll just stay here.

If the government wants to see mutuals thrive, it has to paint a picture of opportunity and  create the right environment to create enthusiam, drive, and investment. That means spurning the negative talk that’s all too easy to do and creating the right environment for change and the tools  – finance, procurement etc – to achieve it.

Is the government up to do the job? When it makes its next pronouncement on open public services, it has to provide the impetus to reinforce  a willing mentality that says ‘Yes, can do’ not ‘Paint it Black.’

I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. But that’s what governments are for: to govern and provide the right environment for change. 

Positive thinking, leadership and action please, not negative no-choices. Opportunity; not opt out.

Global 300 co-operatives generate $1.6 trillion revenue

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, change, change management, government, managing change, mutualisation, mutuals, procurement

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The unavoidable truths about GovIT – by Cabinet Office official

Posted on 31/10/2011 | 14 comments

The vast majority of GovIT is “outrageously expensive” says Chris Chant. “Things have changed and we haven’t.”

By Tony Collins

Chris Chant is one of the most experienced IT officials in central government. He was CIO at Defra where he led IT service improvement programmes with strategic outsourcing partners  including IBM. His reforms helped to change the way people worked.

He was also CIO at the Government Olympic Executive, part of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Now he is an Executive Director in the Cabinet Office working as Programme Director for the G-Cloud initiative.

In a cloud computing event hosted by the Institute for Government in London, Chant told it like it is. The points he make indicate that major change is less of a risk to public finances than keeping the machinery of government as it is.

He began his talk by thanking those in government IT who have been“working their socks off”. He had been talking positively to his teams in the last week and now “it is time to recognise some of the less positive aspects about what we do”.

He added: “We need to face some unavoidable truths head on about government IT as it has been done.”

These were his main points:

“The vast majority of government IT in my view is outrageously expensive, is ridiculously slow, or agile-less, is poor quality in the main and, most unforgivably I think, is rarely user-centric in any meaningful way at all.”

He said it is unacceptable:

–  That “80% of Government IT is controlled by five corporations”.

–  That “some organisations outsource their IT strategy in Government”.

–  That “to change one line of code in one application can cost up to £50,000”.

–  To wait 12 weeks to get a server commissioned for use.  He said: “That’s pretty commonplace. When you think in terms of using a service like Amazon the most problematic thing on the critical path is the time it takes you to get your
credit card out of your wallet and enter the details on screen”.

–  That the civil service does not know the true cost of a service and the real exit costs from those services – the costs commercially, technically and from a business de-integration standpoint. “So  how do we untangle our way out of a particular product or service. I cannot tell you how many times I have had the discussion that says: we need to get away from that but we cannot because of the complexity of getting out from where we are: all the things hanging on to that particular service that we cannot disentangle ourself from.”

– To enter into any contracts for more than 12  months. “I cannot see how we can sit in a world of IT and acknowledge the arrival of the iPad in the last two years and yet somehow imagine we can predict what we are going to need to be doing in two or three, or five or seven or ten years time.”

–  Not to know in government “how many staff we have on the client side of IT”. He said: “I have not yet met anybody who knows what that figure is. People know about small areas but overall we don’t know what that figure is.

– Not to know what IT people do. “So we don’t have any idea of the breakdown of that number that we don’t know either, surprisingly. I think that is outrageous in this climate, and in any climate.”

–  Not to know “what systems we own how much they cost; and how much or even if they’re used”. He said: “I know there are organisations that have turned off tens of thousands of desktop services merely to discover if they are used anymore; and when they do that they discover maybe one per cent are still being used. That’s completely unacceptable.”

– Not to know when users give up on an online service; “and it’s unacceptable not to know why they give up”. He said: “Of course it is unacceptable that they have to give up because the service does not fulfil their needs.”

– to have a successful online service that sends out reminders to use that service through the post.

–  Not to be able to communicate with customers securely and electronically when technology clearly allows that to happen.

– Not to be able to “do our work from any device we choose”. He said: “That is possible and has been for some time. It’s outrageous we cannot do that.”

– To pay up to £3,500 per person per year for a desktop service.

–  That “your corporate desktop to take 10 minutes to boot and the same amount of time to close down”. He said: “But that is the truth of what goes on everyday in Government IT and I suspect the public sector too.”

–  For staff to be unable to access Twitter or YouTube, when they use those services for what they do.

– For call centre staff not to be able to access the very service they are supporting at the call centre. “It sounds funny but  when you think of the consequences of that it is truly dreadful.”

–  To ensure people are working by restricting their access to the Internet. “If we cannot measure people by outputs where on  earth are we?”

Above all, said Chant, “it is unacceptable not to engage  directly with the most agile forward-thinking suppliers that are in the SME  market today and are not among the suppliers we have been using”.

Chris Chant’s talk

This is much of what Chris Chant said:

“A bunch of people have worked their socks off [but], through no  fault of their own, on the wrong thing for some time too… And it’s quite tough being in IT because, a bit like  electricity, it’s one of the rare things people seem to use almost all of the time…but we need to face some unavoidable truths head on about government IT as it has been done.

The vast majority of government IT in my view is outrageously expensive, is ridiculously slow, or agile-less, is poor quality in  the main and, most unforgivably I think, is rarely user centric in any  meaningful way at all…

I’ll give you my personal view of the unacceptable. I have spent a lot of time with teams in the last week talking positively about things and I think it is time to recognise some of the less positive aspects of what we do.

I think it is unacceptable at this point in time to not know the true cost of a service and the real exit costs from those services; the costs commercially, technically and from a business de-integration standpoint – so how do we untangle our way out of a particular product or service? I cannot tell you how many times I have had the discussion that says: we need to get away from that but we cannot because of the complexity of getting out from where we are: all the things hanging on to that particular service that we cannot disentangle ourself from.

I think it is completely unacceptable at this point in time to enter into any contracts for more than 12 months. I cannot see how we can sit in a world of IT and acknowledge the arrival of the iPad in the last two years and yet somehow imagine we can predict what we are going to need to be doing in two to three, or five or seven or 10 years time. It is a complete nonsense.

And to those who say ‘what about a supplier upfront infrastructure: surely you have to fund that somehow?’ I would say: ‘why do we have to treat IT and particularly commodity IT any differently from any other commodity
around?’

Marks and Spencer does not come knocking on the door asking me to guarantee to buy three suits and two shirts a year for the next five years and then they will put a store at the bottom of the road… if you look at a small local garage that has to fund its hydraulic ramps and the computer equipment they now need. They do not ask people to fund that upfront. They go into the market confident of their products and confident of their pricing so they will get people back again and arrange for how that gets funding…

I think it is unacceptable not to know in government how many staff we have on the client side of IT. I have not yet met anybody who knows what that figure is. People know about small areas but overall we don’t know what that figure is. It is also unacceptable that we don’t know what those people do. So we don’t have any idea of the breakdown of that number that we don’t know either,  surprisingly. I think that is outrageous in this climate, and in any climate.

It is completely unacceptable we don’t know what systems we own and how much they cost; and how much or even if they’re used. I know there are organisations that have turned off tens of thousands of desktop services merely to discover if they are used anymore; and when they do that they discover maybe one per cent are still being used…

It is unacceptable not to know when users give up on an online service; and it’s unacceptable not to know why they give up. Of course it is unacceptable that they have to give up because the service does not fulfil their needs.

It unacceptable to have a successful online service that sends out reminders to use that service through the post…. Linked to that, it’s completely unacceptable not to be able to communicate with customers securely electronically when technology clearly allows that to happen.

It is unacceptable not to be able to do our work from any device we choose. That is possible and has been for some time.  It’s outrageous we cannot do that.

It is unacceptable to pay – and these figures are Public Accounts Committee figures – up to £3,500 per person per year for a desktop service.

It is unacceptable for your corporate desktop to take 10 minutes to boot and the same amount of time to close down. But that is the truth of what goes on everyday in Government IT and I suspect the public sector too.

It is unacceptable for staff to be unable to access Twitter or YouTube, when they use those services for what they do.

It is unacceptable for call centre staff not to be able to access the very service they are supporting at the call centre. It sounds funny but when you think of the consequences of that it is truly dreadful.

I think it is unacceptable in this day and age to ensure people are working by restricting their access to the Internet. If we cannot measure people by outputs where on earth are we?

It is unacceptable that 80% of Government IT is controlled  by five corporations.

It is unacceptable that some organisations outsource their IT strategy in Government.

It is unacceptable that to change one line of code in one application can cost up to £50,000.

It is unacceptable to wait 12 weeks to get a server commissioned for use. That’s pretty commonplace. When you think in terms of using a service like Amazon the most problematic thing on the critical path is the time it takes you to get your credit card out of your wallet and enter the details on screen.

Above all – and at the heart of a lot of this – it is unacceptable not to engage directly with the most agile forward-thinking suppliers that are in the SME market today and are not among the suppliers we have been using.

So things have changed and we haven’t is what has happened.

A lot of these things could have been explained away five or 10 years ago but I
don’t think they could have been explained away adequately in the last three years, probably at least.

So how does G-cloud help in all of this? I think G-Cloud is about a fundamental change in the way Government and I believe the public sector too does technology. It is not just about cloud computing. It requires a complete change of approach. A cultural change of approach. A change in the way we look at security; a change in the way we look at service management and above all change in the way we procure services we use. So cloud will be cheaper…

Using cloud solutions that have already been secured and accredited
will be cheaper almost always.  We will only pay for what we use. People will only use DR when they use DR.

Over time through the G-Cloud programme, products will be pre-procured and security accredited. They won’t be accredited by the programme itself but by the first users of this, so we don’t have to replicate that work time and time again because that is what a lot of our staff are doing. A lot of the tens of thousands of staff that are working on the client side of government and public sector IT are procuring the same things, accrediting the same things from a security perspective; and it is a complete and utter waste of time and huge money.

You’ll know from the outset the cost of the product and most importantly we will know the cost of exit. Nuclear power looked really cheap all the time somebody chose to ignore de-commissioning of nuclear power stations, and then it became a very different model.

Contracts will be under a year I believe… I don’t believe aggregated demand and long-term contracts bring value for money. Quite the reverse…  why anybody would offer somebody a contract  which meant we could carry on paying them money almost regardless of the service we got, with no meaningful incentive for better performance? That can all change. When we have the ability, through understanding exit and understanding the cost and performance of things, to move out of one product and into another in short order, I guarantee that the price will come down …

… Costs [of streaming] used to be outrageous and the quality was poor until the BBC put together standards on the way it’s done and the BBC can now buy services on daily basis and the cost has dropped by an order of magnitude and the quality is much improved. They know –  the service providers – that tomorrow somebody can go somewhere else. If Marks and Spencer does not provide clothes at the right price and quality people will go down the road and buy somewhere else. It is that, that drives quality and price, not a long-term contract.

[When people see that] products have clear pricing, clear details of what they do, clear details of what exiting that product is going to be like, and it says: ‘Andy Nelson at the Ministry of Justice has used this product over the last year and this is what he says about of it’, that starts to transform what happens on price and quality far and away above anything that any SLA can or ever has given us. So we won’t get ourselves locked in in any way. Not from a commercial or technical perspective. Many products nowadays are designed to get their little feelers locked into every part of your system….

Our staff over time will become skilled system integrators. That’s what will happen in the short term…

We will see people setting up services in minutes instead of years. How?

We have Foundation Delivery Partners – they are departments, local authorities, organisations that come together with others that are looking
to buy cloud products. The FDPs work with a bunch of people from the government procurement service who handle the commercial aspects; they work with staff from CESG to work out security implications and product by product they have begun to break down what it is they need to do, so subsequently that work does not need to be redone.

Over time we will have a model that describes lots of different circumstances of use of products so we will know – the senior risk information officer – will know what has been covered off already and will see the accreditation that has gone on and will know they will only have to fine tune that for the last bit of use in their department. That will dramatically reduce over time the amount of effort that goes into that security.

Large-scale IL3 email is coming soon; and large-scale IL3 collaboration
opportunities…

[The Government Digital Service is off] corporate systems to a solution that is IL0 and IL1 and 2, with IL3 on a few machines to one side. [There are] savings of 82% over adopting the corporate systems. People don’t wait 10 minutes for machines to boot up and shut down.

We don’t have all the answers… Great quality IT centres around an iterative process that gets stuff out and we learn quickly from what users do with it and is improved and improved.  I don’t recall a press release saying Google will update its apps products on 8 May next year. What happens is you notice a little banner saying we have done it differently: do you want to try it? How many times have you seen improvements on eBay and just experienced them as they arrived?

They are intuitive and what people want and they just happen… [Published in last few minutes] is a new cloud framework that is designed specifically to get SMEs across the threshold and working directly with departments, agencies, local authorities, police and health. There is a user guide. It is a key product.

We will watch very carefully how this gets used, and the impact on SMEs. I don’t anticipate any large organisations having difficulty with this. But the target is to get us engaged with SMEs.

We will watch what their problems are and we will correct that as we go. We are already working on the second version of this which will be due out, hopefully, early in the new year. With brilliant support from John Collington in the Government Procurement Service we will be adding new suppliers on a month by month basis which will dramatically change things and really gives us the flexibility we need.

The second manifestation of how serious we are in the cloud is a document to be published tomorrow which will give a very serious indication of intent around the use of cloud…”

Chris Chant’s talk – audio file Government Digital Service

14 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, change, change management, Cloud, Cloud Computing, G-Cloud, government, Government IT, innovation, procurement, public sector, public services, reforms, SME, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Will the government’s ICT implementation plan finally lock on to the SME solutions it misses?

Posted on 30/10/2011 | 3 comments

By David Bicknell

The  government has the potential to leverage its huge buying power in the ICT marketplace. However, the government’s procurement of ICT has in many cases failed to deliver economies of scale and failed to deliver value for money to the taxpayer.

So that is why the latest ICT implementation plan has an objective for the reform of government procurement by centralising common goods and services spend by funding improvements in technology, processes and government wide procurement resources to better manage total procurement spend and government wide standards. 

The government insists it is therefore committed to become a single and effective ICT customer, leveraging buying power whilst remaining flexible on how it procures.

As part of that process the  government says it will create a more open, transparent and competitive ICT marketplace embracing open standards and open source that will remove barriers to SME participation in public sector procurement to create a fairer and more competitive marketplace.

It is important that these barriers to SME participation are removed, because these smaller innovative companies have solutions that the private sector recognises and which will pay to acquire, but which the government seems to miss.

One, ChangeBASE, which specialises in automated application analysis, remediation and conversion for platforms including Windows 7 and 8, Internet Explorer 8 and 9, Terminal Server/Remote Desktop Session Host, VDI, and Application Virtualisation, has just been snapped up by Quest Software  to help Quest become a single source to help organisations take advantage of technology changes to benefit both IT and users alike.

Another UK SME, Procession, continues to try and make the government aware of its technology for the creation of business application software that is both rapidf and agile. Procession’s CEO David Chassels recently wrote to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude to try and engage with the government in its goal of becoming a better and more intelligent buyer of ICT. It also plans to speak at a forthcoming “teacamp”, the latest of a series of informal meeting places to stimulate ideas and discussion about government work in ICT.

A third, BCS, provides a global universal library subscription service that provides monthly audit data analysis and optimisation for devices, making audit data much easier to manage and understand. It has also created a carbon footprint library that enables organisations to establish a desktop estate baseline for CO2 information so that they can establish and manage software influence on CO2 output and reduce their carbon offset purchase requirements.

There are countless other SMEs offering innovative solutions to help deliver value for money for the taxpayer that the government still probably has no knowledge about, and which have long since given government procurement up as a lost cause.  The  government says it will create a more open, transparent and competitive ICT marketplace that embraces open standards and open source and that removes barriers to SME participation in public sector procurement.

As they say, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

3 Comments

Posted in Agile, Business Intelligence, Campaign4Change, innovation, procurement, SME, Value

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Government publishes cloud computing, end user device, Green IT and ICT Capability strategies

Posted on 28/10/2011 | 1 comment

By David Bicknell

The government has published four strategies which it says, “provide the environment and approaches to radically transform the ICT landscape to create a more productive, flexible workforce that delivers digital public services in a much more cost effective way.”

According to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, the four strategies “link together to fully exploit the cost opportunities arising from technology developments; and to increase the capability and capacity of Government to manage its own ICT and reduce reliance on expensive consultants and contractors.”

The strategies include cloud computing, which Maude says, “details how we will exploit cloud computing to transform the Government ICT estate into one that is agile, cost effective and sustainable.  Government will adopt an approach of ‘public cloud first’ whilst recognising the requirement for secure private cloud provision in some areas. 

“Government will move away from expensive, long-duration bespoke solutions to a common approach – sharing resources and infrastructure to enable us to become a consumer of widely available, ever improving mass market products and solutions.  Many of these solutions will be available for reuse from the Government Application Store.”

“Through significant rationalisation of our data centre estate – moving to a commodity approach towards hosting – we will increase utilisation and efficiency, thus reducing CO2 emissions, accommodation and energy costs.”

The other strategies published include Greening Government ICT, which provides a practical approach to reducing energy costs increasing the sustainability of the ICT estate; an End-User Device strategy which the government says will redefine the way that Government departments work; and an ICT Capability strategy.

“Supporting the Civil Service Reform programme and our ability to significantly reduce our estate and associated costs, the End-user Device strategy will give  public sector workers the freedom to work from any location on any suitable government or non-government device,” says Maude.

On  the ICT Capability strategy, he argues that government will not be able to fully exploit the opportunities from all its strategies without ensuring that the people it employs have the right skills and techniques to manage and run them effectively. The ICT Capability strategy will use a professional framework to put in place structures and processes to increase the capability of ICT professionals at all levels and reduce expenditure on external expertise.

You can access the strategy documents here

1 Comment

Posted in Agile, Campaign4Change, Cloud, Cloud Computing, G-Cloud, Government IT

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why GovIT reform is so slow?

Posted on 28/10/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

An NAO report “A snapshot of the Government’s ICT Profession in 2011”  depicts government CIOs not as business leaders who are passionate for change but as middle-managers who are more or less dispensable.

The impression given in the report is that CIOs are, in general, necessary but not of strategic importance,  not necessarily party to key business decisions.

The NAO reports concludes that there is “more Government and departments could do” to:

– raise the influence of CIOs in departments;

– move the ICT profession from a support service or overhead to taking an active or lead role on business decisions; and

– develop people to a level so that they become leaders and bring ICT into the heart of the business.

Of 17 departments the NAO investigated a CIO sat on the main boards of only two. One department abolished the role of CIO in April 2011. The NAO quoted a CIO as describing his department’s perception of ICT as “at best an overhead”.

What CIOs told the NAO

CIO comments to the NAO on the impact of cost reduction measures were generally negative:

“We are having to re-prioritise and delay IT service enhancement projects.”

“A significant headcount reduction… and consequently a new operating model and a new strategic approach which will affect the roles of all IT professionals significantly.”

“Continual focus on cost-out and scrutiny of spend – in some ways this has helped engender a positive culture of efficiency but the constant demand for information/data is distracting. Skills shortage owing to recruitment freeze on external candidates and reduction in contractors. Requirement to broker cross-network relationships to drive out costs/savings.”

“Pressure to reduce costs/headcount to the Iowest levels means desirable things such as career development opportunity planning, implementing SFIA etc are left on the shelf whilst we divert resource to focus on significant projects to deliver running cost savings to the dept. … The consequences for the lCT function are not yet fully known.”

“The situation has been uncertain and reviews have caused some loss of momentum, but the set of future projects is now clear and we are progressing. Austerity measures have limited our ability to obtain the level of IT skills required for our portfolio.”

“As part of our change programme, the Central Department is reducing cost by approximately 30%. IT is included within this envelope. No money and everybody having to re-apply for jobs.”

[Source National Audit Office survey of central government CIOs 2011]

Skills most needed

It’s a shortage of IT people with business skills that appears to be one of the biggest barriers to change. Demand is greatest, says the NAO, for programme and project managers, procurement specialists and business analysts.

In particular CIOs perceive the need for good people who have contract and supplier management skills, and the ability to manage stakeholders.

On the technical side the skills most needed, as perceived by CIOs, are architecture, analysis and design, and information management/security. The biggest barriers to recruitment, as perceived by CIOs, are public sector pay constraints and inflexible civil service recruitment processes. [On pay some departments are still able to pay large bonuses – see near end of this article.]

NAO recommendations

The highest immediate priority for Government is to continue to motivate and reinforce the value of its ICT profession, says the NAO.

“ICT leaders need to dig deep to manage their teams whether in development projects, service management or operations. CIOs themselves need to continue to reinforce their standing in departments ideally by sitting on departmental boards or, if this is not appropriate, finding other ways to develop their influence so that ICT is properly included in strategic and business decisions.”

ICT leaders will have to find innovative ways to develop skills to fill roles.

“… government cannot ignore the capability gaps because it is so reliant on ICT to conduct its future business.”

The NAO said that CIOs described the same business and technical skills as being in short supply. It advised “structured on-the-job experience and mentoring”.

Greater collaboration across departments and with suppliers may “help to make optimum use of the skills that the profession already has to offer”.  Where
necessary, government must “find practical ways to recover lost skills”.

It added: “With more services being delivered through technology channels, there is a real need to ensure that service delivery is being driven by a skilled and capable ICT workforce.”

The Government Digital Service has at least made a good start – it has begun recruiting innovators.

And when it comes to paying bonuses to keep valued staff, departments still have scope. The Financial Times reported yesterday that the Department for Work and Pensions was the most generous employer in the civil service: it paid more than £45m to its staff in bonuses in the year ending April 2011.

**

Thank you to ComputerworldUK.com for spotting this report which was not distributed by the NAO to the media.

NAO report “A snapshot of the Government’s ICT profession in 2011”

Government CIOs are undervalued, official audit report finds.

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, change, change management, Government IT, managing change, procurement, public sector, public services, reforms, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

CRC (Carbon Reduction Commitment) league table now expected in November

Posted on 28/10/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

It seems that the league table associated with the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) energy efficiency scheme is now expected to be published in November.

This blog post on Local Energy suggests that a November date is expected. That could mean the table will be out next week or alternatively,  it may still be a month away.

Local Energy quoted Carl Sweeney the Operations Manager of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme at the Environment Agency, saying:

“At this time, we anticipate that the PLT will be published in November. We have agreed with DECC that we will notify participants of the publication date one week before release. There is much ongoing work in the background to review and produce the PLT as accurate as possible, so at this stage I can’t be more specific as something unexpected could delay us.”

Third parties familiar with the situation say that the Environment Agency is getting ‘a lot of calls’ on when the table will be published. 

What does the league table mean? The Carbon Trust, a not-for-profit company that provides specialist support to help business and the public sector cut carbon emissions, puts it like this:

“A publicly available CRC performance league table will show how each participant is performing compared to others in the scheme. If your organisation is a good carbon performer, the league table will help give a significant boost to your organisation’s reputation, demonstrating its success in cutting emissions. Please note, however, that because of the changes announced in October 2010, there is likely to be no direct financial benefit under the CRC from an improved position in the league table.Your organisation’s league table position each year will be determined by performance in three metrics:

  • Early action metric: 50% of your score is based on what percentage of your organisation’s electricity and gas supplies is covered by voluntary automatic meter readings (AMR) in the year to 31 March 2011. The other half is based on the proportion of your CRC emissions certified under the Carbon Trust Standard or an equivalent scheme. Visit www.carbontruststandard.com to find out about achieving the Carbon Trust Standard.
  • Absolute metric: The percentage change in your organisation’s emissions, compared to the average of the previous five years (or number of years available until 2014/15).
  • Growth metric: the percentage change in emissions per unit turnover, compared to the average of the previous five years (or number of years available until 2014/15).

The weighting of these three metrics will change over time. In the first year, early action will count for 100% of your organisation’s league table score. Over the first few years of the scheme, the early action metric will gradually fade in importance until the absolute and growth metrics receive 75% and 25% weightings respectively in 2014/15 and thereafter.

As the Carbon Trust points out, if an organisation is a good carbon performer, the league table will boost its reputation, though there will be no direct financial benefit under the CRC from an improved position in the league table.

However, when the results come out, you can well imagine a few marketing departments either keen to trumpet their organisation’s performance or, conversely, trying to shore up their company’s ‘green’ reputation.

See later story: Environment Agency publishes CRC league table

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, Climate Change, energy efficiency, greentech, sustainability

Tagged , , , ,

What Mutualism means for Labour

Posted on 27/10/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

It’s interesting that when a word starts to be linked with a trend or movement, everyone wants to be associated with it.

That’s beginning to be the case with mutuals. Now the Labour Party has seen an opportunity to put its definition on what mutuals are, with the publication of a new pamphlet from the Policy Network, called ‘What mutualism means for Labour.’

The Policy Network blog says this:

“The Conservatives, with their rhetoric of the “big society”, seem to have displaced Labour as the “party of ideas”. Their emphasis on empowering communities and decentralising power arguably reflects a cooption of traditional social democratic language and an encroachment on the ideological terrain of the centre-left. Many see mutualism as the left’s answer to the “big society” and a key pillar in Labour’s political economy. However, our definition of mutualism remains unclear and the means to achieve its goals intangible.

“This pamphlet sets out to develop a clear vision of what mutualism means for Labour and how it can be used to drive forward the social democratic project. It brings together prominent thinkers, politicians and strategists to lay down ideas on how mutuals and co-operatives can serve as models of post-crisis reform in both the private and public sectors. ”

Comment

Given that there are employees who want to set up mutuals, a practical, how- to guide might have been more useful, both to the mutuals themselves as well as to Labour in defining its mutuals credentials. Instead, although this pamphlet has some good essays, it is undermined in places by the usual anti-Thatcher fare that’s great for the Labour Party Conference, but not much practical use to anyone else.

“It is Thatcherism disguised as mutualism – witness the recent case of the awarding of a large NHS contract to a private provider. (Virgin Healthcare) rather than an employee-owned enterprise (Central Surrey Health). David Cameron made much play of the work of Central Surrey Health and indeed praised it publicly as an ideal example of what the ‘big society’ stands for. Yet when it came to the crunch, the progressive mutual organisation was gazumped by the private provider, just as Margaret Thatcher would have loved all those years ago.”

There’s also a dig at No 10’s Director of Strategy, Steve Hilton – “We need to authoritatively restate our values of co-operation, solidarity and mutualism in order to expose the difference between our vision of society and our opponents’. The difference between an authentic tradition, built upon the secure foundations of a century’s worth of history, and a ‘tradition’ built upon an overlap in one of Downing Street strategist Steve Hilton’s Venn diagrams.”

Knockabout stuff, but Punch & Judy politics and of little practical help to today’s fledgling mutuals. 

Is this really what mutualism means for Labour?  On the face of it, not much then.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, mutuals, private sector lessons for the public sector, public sector, public services, social enterprise

Tagged , ,

A few words from Francis Maude on mutuals’ pathfinders, skills and leadership

Posted on 26/10/2011 | Leave a comment

Some key points appear to emerge from this Civil Service Live interview with Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, who continues to be a chearleader for mutuals.

* Don’t bank on another wave of mutual pathfinders. It seems as if there is an internal debate going on which is erring towards wider encouragement for mutualisation.

* Leadership in setting up mutuals is required – and it may come from outside in stimulating workforce interest.

* Maude is more interested in developing skills in-house rather than hiring external consultants

* Staff shouldn’t be excluded from the opportunity to benefit from the sale of any entity.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, mutuals, procurement, public sector, public services, social enterprise

Tagged , , , ,

The case for partnership between mutuals and the private sector

Posted on 26/10/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

I mentioned yesterday ongoing discussions over the role of the private sector in partnering with mutuals.

There is more grist to the mill here in this blog by Craig Dearden-Philips who argues that “the next year or two is crucial. Partnerships appear to be a sensible way to press on beyond the first wave of early adapters.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, mutuals, NHS, private sector, procurement, public sector, public services, social enterprise