Strategy Survival Guide
Strategy Survival Guide
Strategy Survival Guide
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
• Ensures that the accountability, governance and incentive structures of the new institution are<br />
focused on delivering its objectives.<br />
• Demonstrates commitment to delivering the objectives of the new policy.<br />
Weaknesses<br />
• While it is relatively straightforward to design an organisation on paper, creating a new culture and<br />
working style is extremely challenging. It is important to allow the managers of the new institution the<br />
chance to take part in the design of the final structure, and to adapt it if necessary once it becomes<br />
operational.<br />
• Institutional change can have serious implications for individual’s careers. Correct HR procedures<br />
should always be followed to ensure that all employees are treated in an appropriate manner.<br />
• New institutions will create new boundaries and new interfaces, which need to be mapped,<br />
understood and managed.<br />
Pitfalls<br />
• Not "sizing" the new institution correctly, so it ends up over or under resourced.<br />
• Not taking into account the possible reaction of existing stakeholders to a new body.<br />
Institutional change<br />
In Practice: SU Childcare Project<br />
The SU Childcare project envisaged a new role for local authorities in the provision of childcare:<br />
A detailed audit of existing delivery structures was carried out by the Childcare team: the team mapped<br />
out existing policies, funding mechanisms, and delivery mechanisms from the perspective of the different<br />
organisations – including those who directly consumed or provided the services.<br />
As part of that audit work, the team mapped out the accountability arrangements: it was important to<br />
establish who was accountable for what, and how responsibilities were reinforced or undermined by the<br />
governance structures and reporting requirements.<br />
The analysis was bottom up: the team started with delivery structures on the ground, and then looked at<br />
how they related to structures within central government.<br />
The team agreed their findings with key stakeholders: it was useful to discuss and agree the diagnosis of<br />
the problem(s) before developing policy options and recommendations. This also allowed key<br />
stakeholders to agree the relative priority of the problem areas.<br />
The team considered and discussed a wide range of options: it was important to discuss a number of<br />
options, including more radical structures. Each was assessed against the key objectives, wider policy<br />
developments, and ease of implementation. We deliberately held back from defining options until other<br />
elements of the policy package had been agreed so that we were clear about the objectives of<br />
institutional change.<br />
The team were all clear about implications: as it became clearer which options related to which elements<br />
of the diagnosis, it was important to be clear about what this would mean: opportunity costs and ease of<br />
implementation, resource implications, performance management and use of incentives to drive<br />
performance, monitoring and evaluation.<br />
The team then sought a steer from Ministers: Ministers were then invited to agree the relative priority of<br />
problem areas and where this led in terms of policy responses.<br />
<strong>Strategy</strong> <strong>Survival</strong> <strong>Guide</strong> – <strong>Strategy</strong> Skills<br />
Page 187