« 2nd mistake in the Price Waterhouse Analysis | Main | Library books in American public libraries »
January 7, 2007
The 3rd and 4th big mistakes in the Price Waterhouse Review of public library supply chains
I am putting these entries up with the intention that someone will contradict me- make counter arguments. The observations are a result of my own analyses of the data in a number of councils which I have studied. They are essentially the same points I made in the report "Who's in Charge?" and then in my report on the supply chain to London Borough of Richmond to a variety of other councils and then to the Select Committee in 2004. They are the recommendations that provoked the then minister (Lord McIntosh) to call for a review of supply and efficiency. I am saying that that work has not been done properly (yet)
The third mistake of PwC is a failure to show clearly where in the supply chain both responsibility and accountability for results lie. If one were to open (as is recommended) a regional supply centre funded by a number of councils, where then does the responsibility for the efficient operation of that centre lie? And who is responsible for the performance of the councils in its area? With whom are supply contracts negotiated? Who is responsible for the relationship with publishers? Who sets targets for costs and discounts and who manages their achievement? The report provides no answers.
And the fourth mistake is a failure to have analysed and understood where the costs are incurred and how more efficient operation could change them. Most of the £10m-£20m dividend which the report claims will be achieved in 2009 has, in my view, already been taken by the recent competitive activity between traditional library suppliers and Bertrams. That hard fought and controversial price war has given councils the opportunity to take £20m worth of extra books for the same amount of money - and many of them have. There will be no further gain from this route when it has been fully explored over the next 2 years. But it is peanuts compared to the full cost of the service and the opportunities for saving that lie within it. (as has so often been said - and ignored)
PwC did advise MLA and the steering committee that the real saving lies in the findings of the previous report by accountants PKF, but they should have emphasised much more strongly, in my view, that the onus for achieving those savings lies with individual councils and most of them don't appear to know how to do it. It's a much more difficult process than attending one regional seminar, jeering at the presenters behind your sleeve and then going back to your council and writing a council report saying it doesn't apply to you (as I have seen in a number of councils-- "We already do all these things" the reports say- with no explanation to a councillor of whether that is true or not). PwC should, in my view, have laid much better training and communication plans to bring the PKF report to fruit. We are now nearly 4 years down the line since a Minister acknowledged the problem and nothing really has been done about it- as the figures next week for individual councils will show.
I keep saying that the problems of the public library service are very very serious and no one listens. There is a time when the house is crumbling so much it is no longer worth trying to save it. It is the moment to move away.
Where are the officials of the DCMS, the Ministry responsible? Why do they believe they have a right to silence? Who is holding them to account? It is the role of the DCMS to make sure that the MLA, who commission these consultant reviews, do the job properly and ensure that the work is done on behalf of the Minister, Parliament and the public. It is not the role of the DCMS just to defend the MLA (because they appointed them) and sit silent.
Posted by Tim Coates at January 7, 2007 9:24 AM