« The London Libraries Change Programme | Main | From Pat McMahon »
September 9, 2009
£300,000 and counting
Those of us with memories that go back three years remember clearly the MLA /Price Waterhouse Cooper affair which came to a disastrous end after £1m was spent on consultants writing reports about 'The public library supply chain' . The outcome of that work was that little sensible was said and nothing sensible was done. Many officers of the MLA lost their jobs - but no explanation was ever provided and it is beginning to seem that no lessons were learned.
Two of those lessons should have been A. We won't change the public library service by writing reports about it, and B. Don't do the same thing again.
The 'Capital Ambition' project for 'Cultural Improvement' in London includes a project called the 'London Libraries Change' Programme. I cannot put it better than the MLA put it on their own website.
Astute readers of this page will note the folllowing:
1. This programme started in 2008 and is therefore approaching its second anniversary
2. It identified 'communication' as a 'practical priority' - as one of those who keeps an eye out for such communications, I have seen none.
3. At no point does their appear to have been any attempt to solicit the views of the public on such improvements as they would like to see.
4. Nor, apart from a few of the senior people one sees on library committees everywhere, has their been any discussion with ordinary staff- particularly those who work day-to-day with the public, to hear their views.
5. The priorities that the Board of the project have set bear no relation to the issues that one would have anticipated that either the public, or the front liners would have identified or even a finance director in a council should have set. Frankly, who cares about 'Benchmarking of Staff'-- and who believes that that is going to lead to an improvement, and how?
6. It would have been really interesting to hear the views of Londoners on their public libraries but in the absence of doing that one can be fairly certain that among the main improvements which they would have sought would have been A opening hours, B the state of the buildings, C. The stock of reading material, particularly books and D. the knowledge of front line staff.
7. The priorities identified by the Board of the project address absolutlely none of these-- withoout any explanations
8. There has been no communication
9. The expenditure on consultants already exceeds £300,000 (Phase 1 cost £75,000 and phase 2 has a budget of £249,000)
10. There are no improvements.
Ring the Alarm Bells? -- yes do
For no consultant's fee at all, I offer this advice: With cabinet structures in local government the only place that can set priorities to change the way services are run is in that cabinet room. Only if the portfolio holder and the leader of the council decide that among the many things a council should be doing, that improvement to libraries is important will it take place.
Therefore the arguments and considerations that would lead to change and improvement need to be the subject of detailed and well informed discussion amongst those councillors. In the case of London wide change, that means bringing together a group of portfolio holders and probably some leaders, in order to discuss what it would take to persuade them to make changes and what those changes should be.
None of that is happening in this project. There is a distant endorsement of 'chief executives' but it appears to me that that is irrelevant to the work that is being done; it won't make any difference.
I would put Councillor Higgins, of Hillingdon in charge of the whole project, if it is to stand a chance of achieving anything.
But all these things, it seems to me and many others, were obvious when 'Better Stock Better Libraries' came crashing down-- so why it this happening all over again? Why are the MLA, who seem to be in charge walking cheerfully towards the same cliff edge down which so many of their friends and colleagues have already tumbled?
To the 30 or so reports of the last decade, this project will add at least another 4, that will prove to have been a waste of time and a lot of money.
The extent of wasted time was reinforced by an MLA advertisement for courses on 'workforce development' advertised this week, which concentrated on ' Gaining the support you deserve' saying
"This session will demonstrate how a planned approach to advocacy, intended to influence the right people, in the right way, at the right time can put your organisation in a much stronger position. It will support a range of activities including negotiating difficult budget decisions, riding out the economic storm, and taking advantage of funding opportunities. Advocacy is an essential element of marketing and communications: it is about systematically identifying stakeholders and building bridges to get their support, which may make the difference between success and failure."
Nothing here about identifiying what the public wants and doing it better- as a way of persuading people that you are doing a worthwhile job. Does nobody see that the 'Stakeholders' are not government departments and agencies and other departments of councils-- they are the public.
It is time that senior responsible governemt officers realised that their job is not to keep 'taking advantage of funding opportunities' - but to the best job they can with the huge amounts of tax payers money they have already been given.
Posted by Perkins at September 9, 2009 8:52 AM