A shift from fixing things to stopping them breaking in the first place. Cost benefit analysis is likely to show that this is a much better way to spend money. But it requires major reconfiguration in how work is done because there is so much organisational and occupational investment in ‘cure’.
A switch from addressing parts to addressing wholes, eg that an alcoholic may also be unemployed and have family problems. This means more than an expensive and often ineffective multi-disciplinary approach. It means turning on its head the way we think about social support so that the focus is all of an individual’s life, not the presenting issue.
We drop the ball at interfaces, eg when an old person leaves hospital to return home or when a young person leaves school to go to work. Transitions in people’s lives and circumstances often don’t match organisational boundaries. The answer is not more co-ordinating jobs but connection between the staff already doing the work.
It is well understood in the commercial world that 20% of customers probably account for 80% or more of business. Demand for many public services is far more concentrated. If attention is focused on these high cost users there is an opportunity to break recurring patterns and dramatically reduce overall expenditure.
Public service organisations still operate largely from their own buildings, support functions (IT, finance, HR etc) and base of policy, research and intelligence. If these are connected not only is there a large saving but integration of what they do becomes much easier.
Poor internal processes and poor people management create hidden administrative overheads, for example one part of an organisation imposing demands on another which creates work without adding value. This needs to be tackled with lean thinking which drives out activity not contributing to an end result. Money released by doing this can support spend to save investment elsewhere.
It is one thing to identify a potential efficiency, another to realise it. Efficiencies may be swallowed up by formerly unmet demand. To realise an efficiency in cash terms requires that activity is stopped and the resources spent on it decommissioned.
The demand for public services is bottomless if people assume that the state rather than their family, friend or neighbour is the first and natural source of support. So we look for better ways to help households and communities become self-confident and self-reliant.
The underlying model of public service remains a ‘factory’ one, with most leadership attention and energy going into doing things rather than ensuring they get done. Instead the primary task needs to be seen as commissioning results, with a pragmatic view of how they are best delivered.
Pooled budgets are a step in the right direction. But the goal must be that all the public money going into a locality, including that from central government, is viewed and directed as a totality. This means a fundamental shift to a programme approach, in which work towards specific outcomes is funded for a fixed period and ongoing standing structures are minimised.
This is all very well, I hear you say, but we’ve known these things for years: what does Total Place add? The answer is absolutely not ‘some tools in a programme management bag’.
The answer is creating a different kind of conversation between people.
Without that ideas stay just that: ideas. If you think this is mushy, go and talk to people in Cumbria, Suffolk, Wiltshire, Birmingham, Swindon, Westminster, Harrow, Lewisham, Dorset, Poole, Bournemouth and elsewhere who are doing it.
Stephen Taylor and Phil Swann lead Total Place programmes within the 13 national pilots and elsewhere. stephen.taylor@taylorhaig.co.uk
phil.swann@sharedintelligence.net