|Posted: 05 July 2008 at 06:10 | IP Logged
Once again they are playing "catchup" and leaving things to the last minute
In this case "they" are probably not LSC or CDS but now the governing "overseers" from The Treasury (to get as much tax back as possible or to reduce expense to the legal aid budget or to improve data reporting so they can do the same again)
The problem with all of this "red tape" is that there is very little "joined up" thinking and a constant desire (as in this case) to promote standardisation across the LSC (hence the so called unification process) and the need to control
While all the above may be appropriate over time, do you not think that the time for implementing changes should be in a cohesive and properly organised manner with appropriate advance warning and actual "connection" with any IT system which records these data elements?
What is the betting there will be more and ever more incremental changes over time?
Guess whether there will be a cohesive attempt to bring in all changes harmoniously?
Guess who pays for this red tape and guess how many depts are involved at CLS and elsewhere doing their own thing, managing their own processes for their own purposes and with the result any changes come out as "messy"?
Now, they have done it to the Health Service, they have done it to the Education Service, they have done it to the Public Transport Services, they are doing it to the Armed Services and they are now doing it to the legal system.
It is a co-ordinated non cohesive non appropriately managed tinkering with a system where the burden will always fall on those who are providing the service (us) and where the morale of the service they pretend to be managing is ever decreasing
And they will advance the case and blow their own trumpet that this is all in the interests of better management (i.e. their own). But where is the cost? As usual at the coal face. They will end up with a broken down system which eventually opts not to co-operate and which will finally seize up - not their fault of course!
Would this type of change happen in a private company trying its best to manage its business in the most efficient way for the benefit of its shareholders (the tax payers in our case) and their customers (the clients in our case) so as to provide the best service to each part of their organisation ?
Morale in all organisations is important and change when it happens has to be very carefully and comprehensively managed! When will they learn?
It is sometimes not only the big things which start counter responses, but the small things when the number of small events become numerous. Is this one of those small things and how many small things pile up until they become a significant big thing!
Have the LSC ever published or given indications how their structures work, how many people are involved, what they actually do, and how they actively manage their purpose?
Apart that is from the general proposition - all things must be done within the Budget given; which means they have to make changes (or actually pass expense incurred to other parts of the system) so that a saving is apparently saved (when elsewhere it adds to other dept budgets!
Am I the only one who sees what is happening? Does any central dept ever look beyond its own boundaries at the impact elsewhere. Do they have an "impact policy"? If so, how does it work, and is it published somewhere? Has the Law Society been asked to assess impact of changes?
Does it strike you as a "planned cohesive event" if we are now being asked to enter a 0 into an IT form at all appropriate places because the information is not needed and if you do not do it the whole form for claiming expenses is rejected?
Did they not invite the IT dept what the impact of their change would be on the IT data collection they use?
If not, why not!
If they did what was the answer (bet you I can guess! it would cost money to change the forms (this with a centralised system!!!) - so let us make use of the hundreds of people each month to fill in 0s "where appropriate" and save us the money - hang the time and cost to the users, we do not pay them for filling in the form! - That's a "win" situation for them)
I do not complain about the need to reduce cost nor to improve quality nor (as it may seem) to I attack the often dedicated and hard worked individuals at the LSC who are trying to accomplish the higher imperatives given to them, but is it not the case that the system is not working properly
This is not just a moan! It is a call/desire to seek appropriate change appropriately implemented. It is for those who come after that we must fight today
An old hand