Strategy Survival Guide

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