« What people have said. | Main | No more reports »
July 11, 2009
What the Capital Ambition Libraries programme for London should be doing
Last week I drew attention to the Capital Ambition programme for London and within it the project for public libraries
As is normal among government documents these are so badly written as to be painful and I am told that they have been submitted to the Campaign for Plain English as an example of the kind of toothache we can all do without.
However I want to make a number of points of free guidance to those who are on the Programme Board
1. The starting point (as Tribal rather meekly tried to say in their report that preceded this) is THE PUBLIC. You have to begin by understanding what the public want from their library service and why they choose either to use it or not to use it. It is perfectly possible to analyse the 'usage and attitude' of users and potential users in the way that any public trading body, commercial or non-commercial, would do. The programme of work hardly acknowledges that the public in London are stakeholders at all-- there is no statement of what one believes that people want. The first project should be a detailed analysis of the public need.
2. That analysis would then identify what measures the management can use to know whether they are doing what the public wants. Until those things are done the project should go no further.
3. It is ridiculous, therefore, to embark on three projects about library loans, workforce development and procurement processes without knowing what one is trying to aim for by doing them.
The Tribal report was not too bad- but I thought it was too long and too waffly. Buried within it are some quite sensible observations.
However the Project Board (nice people though they are)- have fudged. The project is now off-track because they haven't given a clear lead. And the idea that they will ever solve the three problems they have listed by using committees of chief librarians to do so, I'm afraid, is a terrible joke. Call me in two years and tell me I was right.
Step one was to carry out clear, independent, professional market research - without that, the project is yet another huge waste of time and money. Step two was, from an understanding of that evidence to make a clear statement of purpose with which both the public and the management could agree. Step three was to identify the priorities, from the public point of view and the resources needed, and then a management programme with clear responsibilities, to achieve some defined aims.
In fact that is what the DCMS review should also have done, too. But they haven't.
The main and most important stakeholders who both pay for the service and choose whether or not to use it-- are Mr and Mrs J Public. They come first. You have to know what they think and what they want and, using the resources they provide, work quickly and effectively on their behalf. That is Public Administration.
Posted by Perkins at July 11, 2009 8:32 AM
Comments
Definitely in the mood to protest about something, Shirley. Would Tim Coates like to lead a march on, say, DCMS in London? Perhaps we could all sit on or around that fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square? Caroline at CILIP, are you reading this? By the way, my personal email is out at the moment, so if anyone has tried to contact me, I apologise for not being able to reply.
Posted by: James Christie at July 13, 2009 10:11 AM