Employment plans for mutuals and social enterprises may face TUPE obligations hurdle

By David Bicknell

What are the employment implications of creating mutuals and social enterprises following the publication of the Open Public Services White Paper?

An article by Asheem Singh of Impetus Trust on the Guardian’s Social Enterprise Network carries these TUPE references which may raise some questions about employment obligations in setting up a mutual or social enterprise.

“We also once worked with an organisation called Speaking Up, who found the requirements of a piece of European legislation called the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations (TUPE), which specifies that public sector staff contracts do not end because their employment structure changes, to be onerous.

“When Speaking Up had won a contract on the basis that they were an innovative, cost effective, nimble social enterprise, they found themselves obliged to take on staff previously from the public sector and both parties found the change in culture difficult. The point is that the change in management process is but one of many puzzles that emerge, as yet unaccounted for, hidden within the government’s plans.”

Could US-like public service coding to build ‘mutual’ apps that benefit local communites work here?

By David Bicknell

A recent article on O’Reilly Radar has discussed the creation of coding challenges and competitions in the US to build government apps that benefit the wider community.  

It discusses a recent ‘hackathon’ in Portland,  which invited local developers to identify not only the type of interactions required between the city and residents, but also to coordinate and collaborate on the essential feature set needed to capture and display those interactions.

According to the O’Reilly Radar piece, the applications presented at the end of the Portland hackathon were:

  • A mapping program that shows how much one’s friends know each other, clustering people together who know each other well
  • An information retrieval program that organizes movies to help you find one to watch
  • A natural language processing application that finds and displays activities related to a particular location
  • An event planner that lets you combine the users of many different social networks, as well as email and text messaging users (grand prize winner)
  • A JSON parser written in Lua communicating with a GTK user interface written in Scheme (just for the exercise)
  • A popularity sorter for the city council agenda, basing popularity on the number of comments posted
  • A JavaScript implementation of LinkedIn Circles
  • A geographic display of local institutions matching a search string, using the Twilio API
  • A visualisation of votes among city council members
  • An aggregator for likes and comments on Facebook and (eventually) other sites
  • A resume generator using LinkedIn data
  • A tool for generating consistent location names for different parts of the world that call things by different terms

“Because traditional incentives can never bulk up enough muscle to make it worthwhile for a developer to productise a government app, the governments can try taking the exact opposite approach and require any winning app to be open source. That’s what Portland’s CivicApps does.

“Because nearly any app that’s useful to one government is useful to many, open source should make support a trivial problem. For instance, take Portland’s city council agenda API, which lets programmers issue queries like “show me the votes on item 506” or “what was the disposition of item 95?” On the front end, a city developer named Oscar Godson created a nice wizard, with features such as prepopulated fields and picklists, that lets staff quickly create agendas. The data format for storing agendas is JSON and the API is so simple that I started retrieving fields in 5 minutes of Ruby coding. And at the session introducing the API, several people suggested enhancements.”

The article refers to Code for America,  a public service organisation for programmers, which enlists the talent of the web industry into public service to use their skills to solve core problems facing communities.  All projects are open source, but developers are hooked up with projects for a long enough period to achieve real development milestones.

In the words of Code for America, “we help passionate technologists leverage the power of the internet to make governments more open and efficient, and become civic leaders able to realise transformational change with technology.” A sort of coding mutual then (OK, I’m stretching definitions a little)

Here is a link to a page entitled What We Can do for Your City,  which discusses how top talent is recruited from the technology industry to give a year building civic software that will help cities “cut costs, work smarter, and engage more with their citizens.”

Admittedly, not all things travel well across the pond, but could such an organisation, concept, idea possibly work here, with modifications?

A standard cloud-based ERP for central govt?

By Tony Collins

 The Cabinet Office has published “Government Shared Services: A Strategic Vision – July 2011″ which suggests a  “cloud- based ERP standard platform which Departments could buy into and from”.

The idea is part of the coalition’s plans to standardise IT systems within government. Standardising could save money – but, as the Public Administration Select Committee warned last week, not if standardising means giving even more control of government IT to a few large, monopolistic suppliers.

The Cabinet Office says that a number of Departments are due to upgrade their supporting IT systems for back office corporate services in the coming years.

 “A co-ordinated management approach by Government will lower the cost of reinvestment whilst enabling a rationalisation of the current landscape,” says the Cabinet Office.

“For example, a number of large Departments who have implemented and operate an Enterprise Resource Platform (ERP) solution need to plan for the expiration of support to the current instance by 2013.

 “This presents an opportunity for UK Government to source a “vertical” solution for a “cloud based” ERP standard platform which Departments could buy into and from.”

On Shared Services, the plan is to 

“reform how Central Government procures and manages consolidated back office corporate services – by establishing an equitable market of a small number of accredited Independent Shared Service Centres and enabling Departments and their ALBs [arm’s-length bodies] to choose between these – in order to drive up quality and reduce costs of these services, in support of Governments cost reduction targets.”

The Cabinet office says that approved shared services centres will “provide outcome based services, using standardised simplified processes, with the expectation to regularly publish performance data against established benchmarks”.

They will be able to make use of different business models – such as mutualisation – to “leverage capability and the financial investment needed to deliver this service and may operate virtually or from a small number of fully integrated delivery centres”.

Government shared services – a strategic vision. July 2011

MPs to report on £11bn NHS IT scheme on Wednesday

The House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee will publish a report on the NHS’s National Programme for IT detailed care records systems on Wedneday 3 August.

The report is likely to be critical of Sir David Nicholson, the Senior Responsible Owner of the NPfIT who told the committee’s MPs that 80% of the total programme has been delivered.

MPs believe that the programme has been a failure, with poor value for money for the systems delivered so far, which have cost about £6bn.

Sir David Nicholson has been overall senior responsible owner of the NPfIT since 2006. He was not responsible for initiating the programme, which happened under the Blair government in 2002, but he accepted responsibility for making the NPfIT a success. He turned down a call by academics for an independent review of the NPfIT.

Detailed care records systems are only part of the NPfIT – but they were the main reason for the programme’s introduction. Staff at the National Audit Office, which has investigated aspects of the NPfIT three times, say they are not convinced that the national programme is under control.

Carbon Disclosure Project report discusses energy saving and low carbon benefits of Cloud Computing

David Bicknell

One of the most informed and engaging writers around sustainability and business is Andrew Winston, who writes a blog called Finding the Gold in Green and writes for the Harvard Business Review as well.

His blog discusses  a new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project about the sustainability benefits of Cloud Computing

Here’s the intro to the report:

Across business, executives are looking for ways in which they can operate more sustainably and thereby increase their competitive edge. Information Communications Technology (ICT) is seen as a key area of focus for achieving sustainability goals. This report shows that business use of cloud computing can play an important role in an organisation’s sustainability and IT strategies: improving business process efficiency and flexibility whilst decreasing the emissions of IT operations.

This study used detailed case study evidence from 11 global firms and assessed the financial benefits and potential carbon reductions for a firm opting for a particular cloud computing service. It also demonstrates how projected cloud computing adoption could drive economy-wide business benefits from a financial and carbon reduction perspective in the US.

The results show that by 2020, large U.S. companies that use cloud computing can achieve annual energy savings of $12.3 billion and annual carbon reductions equivalent to 200 million barrels of oil – enough to power 5.7 million cars for one year.

The report also delves into the advantages and potential barriers to cloud computing adoption and gives insights from the multi-national firms that were interviewed.

ITIL IT service management best practices get 2011 update

Those with an interest in IT Service Management in the public sector – and those in the private sector too – will know that the ITIL best practice books were updated yesterday to reflect the updated ITIL 2011 edition.

There is some useful background here on the ITSM Oasis, on Stephen Mann’s Forrester blog, and by Ann All on ITIL adoption

Mutuals: the possible impact of European competition rules on ‘Almos’ in the housing sector

Some questions have been raised over how European competition rules will apply to mutuals.

This blog post discusses the potential impact on arms length management  organisations (Almos) in the social housing sector, what their future options might be, and the effect on mutuals of the Teckal Test, which tests whether contracts and the contractor are under the public authority’s direct control. The piece suggests that because mutuals are owned by their workforce, they don’t meet the test.

Big Society Capital launched to help provide investment for mutuals and social enterprises

The Government, backed by the High St banks, has launched the Big Society Bank,  to support organisations that invest in the sector, helping them:

  • Provide a greater range of financial services to social sector organisations;
  • Raise more money for onward investment into the sector; and
  • Become more sustainable and resilient themselves.

The bank, to be known as ‘Big Society Capital’ will, the Government says, also be a champion for social investment with policy makers, investors, stakeholders in the sector and the public at large. Venture capital pioneer, Sir Ronald Cohen, will serve as the unpaid, interim Chair of Big Society Capital Limited, the operating company of the group, until it is fully operational.  Nick O’Donohoe, formerly Global Head of Research at JP Morgan, will become Big Society Capital’s first CEO.

The Government insists Big Society Capital will play a critical role in speeding up the growth of the social investment market. Socially orientated financial organisations will have greater access to affordable capital, using an estimated £400million in unclaimed assets left dormant in bank accounts for over 15 years and £200million from the UK’s largest high street banks. Big Society Capital and the four Merlin banks have also come to an agreement on heads of terms for the banks’ £200m investment in the company.

Couple of quotes, first of all from Prime Minister David Cameron:

“When I announced the idea of a Big Society Bank, I wanted to help social enterprises and other groups to grow and expand their vital work. I am delighted that with today’s announcement of the organisation’s first investment, this vision is becoming a reality. I’ve seen the amazing work that Britain’s social enterprises already do to tackle some of our country’s most intractable problems.

“I believe that Big Society Capital will play a major role in injecting significant resources and financial innovation into these social enterprises, while at the same time attracting further funding from charitable foundations, private individuals and other investors. That’s why I wholeheartedly welcome today’s launch and the organisation’s first investment.

And also from Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude:

“There are few moments like this when something happens that can really change the world. We’ve all heard about a small charity or social enterprise sweeping away entrenched local social problems. But we have not seen a significant commitment to help social innovations grow and be implemented on the national stage until now. Big Society Capital will undoubtedly change this and unlock the money that charities and social enterprises need to grow when a big opportunity comes along. This government is proud to support this achievement. I want to thank Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick O’Donohoe and everyone else, including the banks, who have made this a reality so quickly.”

There is more detail on the Cabinet Office website

Moving the mutuals discussion forward beyond the Open Public Services White Paper

By David Bicknell

Some strong words are being expressed about the ongoing development of mutuals and co-operatives by two commentators, Ed Mayo of Co-operatives UK and Craig Dearden-Philips.

Mayo’s article highlights the Foster Care Co-operative, an independent and ethical ‘not-for-private-profit’ fostering agency, based in Malvern, Worcestershire, with three regional offices, Greenwich Leisure Limited is one of London’s most successful mutual enterprises, operating more than 90 public leisure centres in the South East and West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative is a fully mutual housing co-operative in the south east area of Glasgow which provides, manages and maintains quality affordable housing as examples of what people, working together can achieve.

But he warned, there will be challenges for public sector workers setting up new co-operatives.  “We need to ensure that we can provide real help which will guarantee that they are supported through this process, if indeed that’s what they want to do. Any new co-operatives formed need to enshrine the co-operative values and mustn’t be allowed to be ‘fake mutuals’.”

“Co-operatives can only succeed – and in the public sector success is essential – if they are independent enterprises, controlled by their members – staff and users. ”

In his article, Dearden-Philips says this, “What it (the Open Public Services White Paper) does for spin-outs can be more clearly expressed by stating what it dodges. In short, the three ‘P’s. Procurement, Pensions and People. It doesn’t tell public bodies that they can give spin-outs contracts and enjoy support from the centre in doing this. It doesn’t clear the mud about pension-rights for staff joining a spin-out or going back into the public sector afterwards. It doesn’t allow give clear rights to people who want to do this the entitlement to do it, assuming the business-case is there. Compared to the Academies Bill, which made all of the above very clear – with mass spinning out as a result – this White Paper was lightweight.

“All is not gloom. The Government’s own Mutual Support Programme opens in the Autumn and there are signs that the Department of Health’s successful Social Enterprise Investment Fund (SEIF) will also reopen for business soon. Conferences are aplenty, and some have more than just consultants in attendance, notably the Employee Ownership Association’s excellent event this month.

“Further to this, there are also signs that local authorities in particular are rising from the canvas following the knockout blow from this current year’s financial settlement. While a punishing in-year programme has needed to be put in place, absorbing all energy to date, councils are now eyeing the horizon and looking more strategically at the question of how they deal with greater demand and fewer resources long-term.

“The answer many are coming up with is that you can only really deliver more and better public services through a more fulsome engagement with citizens and communities. The public service cake used to be just made of one ingredient: public money. In future, the cake will be more complex, combining public funds, private funds, citizen effort and community endevour. The tailored, equitable services we all want will only come with all of these extra element ‘baked-in’.

“The questions most councils up and down are now grappling with is how to do this. Legacy services are expensive and ineffective but often politically incendiary because of what they represent. Public libraries are an example. The potential for libraries as community-hubs is well-documented but you need to convince people of the need for a new type of settlement for these kinds of institutions to work properly. This includes volunteers on top of paid staff, fundraising on top of public funding, paid for services on top of free ones, a business outlook on top of a social one.

“Where I am driving here is that I think the solution to the big question councils are grappling with lies in social enterprise. This defines social enterprise not in the frame of the public-private continuum, but as an entirely new approach to producing the public goods that most of us wish to see in our communities. For this reason, we should see their development as outside the usual EU procurement mindset that preoccupies most commissioners of services. Local authorities should be freed up from worrying about that and worry instead about how they are going to best combine their own resources with those of communities and citizens. ”

Meanwhile, there are more details here about a potential new source of funding for social enterprise

Mutualisation Briefing

SMEs are “not disadvantaged by large ICT companies in any unfair way”

By Tony Collins

Intellect, the trade association that represents IT suppliers, large and small, has responded to yesterday’s report “Recipe for rip-offs – time for a new approach” from MPs on the Public Administration Select Committee.

The thrust of the committee’s report is that a few large companies dominate government IT, overcharge the taxpayer , suffocate innovation and subjugate SMEs.

Now Sureyya Cansoy at Intellect, in giving her organisation’s response to the report, quotes Alistair Hardie, who is the SME Champion on Intellect’s Board, and MD of an SME.

Hardie says:

 “On behalf of our SME members I don’t believe SME’s are disadvantaged by large ICT companies in any unfair way at all.

“As we all know, many public sector procurement practices remain SME unfriendly but that is not the fault of large ICT companies.”

On accusations in the PASC report of cartel behaviour, Hardie says: “SME ICT companies don’t see any sign of large companies colluding. Quite the opposite, we see them in fierce competition.”

Sureyya Cansoy describes the committee’s comments as “heavy-handed”.

“I have spent the day looking at the Public Administration Select Committee report on Government and IT, which was published this morning (which was difficult to miss given that it was reported by BBC and the broadsheets).

“My first observation was that it carried unfortunately a very negative title, which seemed to have been designed to grab the headlines. And it did just that! It is, therefore, not surprising that the press coverage of the report has been largely negative of government ICT and the industry.”

She says the positives in the report include recommendations that:

• IT must be fully integrated into policy making

• There is no such thing as an IT project – government must focus on what they want to achieve and not the technology.

• Government must become a more intelligent customer by recruiting people with the skills to procure and manage IT contracts.

• Strong leadership and accountability are required to drive change.

Cansoy also welcomes the committee’s view that the supplier base to government should be widened to offer more opportunities to SMEs.

“However, I should also emphasise that we believe that best results for government can be achieved by a diverse ecosystem of different suppliers, large and small, doing different things.”

One of the biggest barriers for SMEs and new entrants to the market is the cost and length of procurement. By making procurement simpler, faster and cheaper, government can open up the market to many new players, including SMEs, says Cansoy.

Intellect has issued a statement denying an allegation in the committee’s report that big IT suppliers to government may operate a cartel.

“The implication is that leaders of public sector businesses in our industry have been involved in criminal activity. As the trade body for the ICT sector, we want to make it clear that this is not the case and cartels do not exist in our industry.

“On the contrary, this is a highly competitive market. Intellect would cooperate with any investigation into such allegations, but we believe it would be a waste of public money.”

Intellect is also “very concerned” about the suggestion in the committee’s report that Whitehall’s approach to IT had been a recipe for rip-offs”.

It says that “those who know the industry well will know that doing business with government can be costly because of the long procurement processes involved and government customers’ non-standard requirements.

“Pricing therefore inevitably reflects the fact that government over-prescribes its requirements. For this to change, the government needs to make radical changes to the procurement process to avoid the impression of overcharging.”

Intellect’s response to Public Administration Select Committee report.

Excerpts from PASC report.