Service Delivery Review Fournier Consulting Services

  • 264 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
264
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Ontario East Municipal Conference September 12, 2012, Kingston Steve Fournier, Principal, Fournier Consulting Services 1
  • 2.  Objective- provide an overview on the fundamentals of service delivery review with practical strategies for success based on the following experiences:  CAO, United Counties of Leeds & Grenville SDR Program 2005-2007  Interim CAO/management roles in the long term care, conservation authority, and smaller urban-rural municipal sectors 2008- 2012  Focus on how it is done, what can be accomplished and who benefits 2
  • 3.  The Leeds & Grenville SDR program is based on a six (6) stage model that addresses 10 questions developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing currently found in the following publication:  Making Choices- A Guide to Service Delivery Review for Municipal Councillors and Senior Staff, March 2010 3
  • 4. Stage 1: Get Organized. Stage 2: Establish Performance Outcomes and Service Standards. Stage 3: Understand and evaluate current performance. How does current performance compare to your performance targets? 4
  • 5. Stage 4: Evaluate Options: Option 1- consider internalimprovements; or Option 2- investigate other feasibleservice delivery methods. Stage 5: Where determined select alternate service provider. Stage 6: Implement, evaluate and report. 5
  • 6.  Stage1:Getting Organized:  Engage and secure the “buy in” of council and senior staff;  Find a champion in your organization who is willing to lead and manage the project;  Assign the human (e.g., staff project team), time and financial resources necessary to complete the review, whether you go “in-house” and/or use external expertise;  Establish the principles that will guide the approach and reflect the values of your organization;  Develop a standard inter-departmental template to incorporate descriptive information and financial data required in Stages 2-6- refer to Technical Appendix; 6
  • 7.  Stage 1: Getting Organized continued:  Clearly state the purpose(s) and scale of the review (what you are doing, why and anticipated outcomes);  Determine who is involved and how (roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders);  Prioritize the review of your services;  Adopt a work plan with realistic and manageable key milestones dates; and  Engage and keep staff and public informed. 7
  • 8.  Stage 2: Establish Performance Outcomes and Service Standards:  Determine discretionary and mandatory services, what’s nice, what’s essential and what’s mandated- see Technical Appendix;  Determine discretionary, locally driven versus mandated (legislated) service standards- see Technical Appendix;  Survey and engage partners, clients and the public to assess ‘customer satisfaction’, (re)set targets and/or identify areas for improvement, e.g., conservation authority; 8
  • 9.  Stage 3: Understand and Evaluate the Current Performance in Comparison to Targets:  Break services down into functional areas, e.g., winter maintenance, and further refine program elements, e.g., labour costs, material costs, etc as defined in your financial chart of accounts- see Technical Appendix;  The use of comparators is helpful as a relative gauge of how well, or not so well, a service is performed but must ensure you’re measuring ‘apples to apples’; 9
  • 10.  Stage 3- continued:  Here decisions on when and where the use of external consultants were made and recommendations forwarded to council for approval, e.g., long term care resident record keeping training needs and CMI funding levels; and  Departmental staff input programs developed using senior staff from other departments as facilitators. Input focused on 3 questions: (1) What do we do well?; (2) In terms of outcomes what can we do better?; and (3) Are there things we can do better without increasing costs? 10
  • 11.  Stages 4 & 5: Internal Improvements or Alternative Service Delivery Methods:  At Leeds & Grenville each divisional director responsible for preparing a SDR Program report with recommendations for internal improvements and/or alternate service delivery methods;  50 lines of business reviewed between 2005 and 2007 with recommendations ranging from:  internal process efficiency improvements, e.g., centralized purchasing, streamlining job ads and building conservation measures;  major departmental reorganizations, e.g., Community and Social Services-integrated one window approach; 11
  • 12.  Stages 4 & 5: Continued:  the re-investment of cost savings to improve other elements of a service, e.g., land ambulance re- deployment of stand by vehicles and new deployment of ERV to improve response times;  the investment of funds in staff training to improve revenue streams, e.g., increased CMI scores for long term care funding envelopes; 12
  • 13.  Stages 4 & 5: Continued:  Streamlining and consolidation of committee and governance structures, e.g., reduction in meeting per diems and administrative staff time; and  and alternate service delivery methods in two program areas: (1) transfer of after hours emergency program in Social and community services to the Red Cross; and (2) fleet cost reduction and reorganization plan in Public Works. 13
  • 14.  Stages 4 & 5: Continued:  By the fall of 2007 the Leeds & Grenville SDR program results produced an estimated annualized increase of $175,000 in revenues and a $600,000 reduction in expenditures. 14
  • 15.  Stages 4 & 5: Continued:  Reviews in recent assignments focused primarily on recommendations designed to position municipal clients for involvement in SDR by:  clarifying roles between staff and council/boards;  re-establishing positive working relationships and engagement processes with partners and clients in areas of policies and procedures;  conducting extensive stakeholder/client surveys to address issues and needs;  undertaking internal process mapping of tasks and activities. 15
  • 16.  Stage 6: Implement, Evaluate and Report:  Changes communicated to staff and the public prior to implementation- staff meetings followed by press releases;  SDR requires a serious commitment of resources and time for both council and staff where you must be prepared to implement the full range of improvements and changes from the simple tweaking of processes to the elimination of a departmental function. 16
  • 17.  The Experience with Service Delivery Review and Improvements:  SDR initiatives link employee engagement to operational performance and client/partner satisfaction to foster trust and confidence in the delivery of services;  Staff engagement throughout the process improves the work place environment and produces a ‘cultural shift’- SDR is a continuous and on – going operational activity at Leeds and Grenville;  Senior staff focus on their roles-the management of services with a commitment to improve performance outcomes. 17
  • 18.  The Experience with Service Delivery Review and Improvements- Continued:  The engagement of partners and clients in the process improves working relationships and removes barriers for partners and clients;  Changes to services are made in an objective and informed manner; 18
  • 19. Thank YouQuestions 19