I start with a commonly accepted definition:
Commissioning is the process of specifying, securing and monitoring services to
meet people’s needs at a strategic level. This applies to all services, whether
they are provided by the local authority, NHS, other public agencies, or by the
private and voluntary sectors. (Making Ends Meet, Social Services Inspectorate
/ Audit Commission 2003)
Within such an approach is an inherent complexity arising
from not only the subtlety of the needs mentioned but also from the interaction
of those needs which will often pull in opposing directions: what a particular
user needs will not be same as nor necessarily compatible with the needs of the
wider community (for example). A robust and effective approach to commissioning
therefore needs to have the capability to ‘hold’ this complexity and work
within it to make effective decisions about provision, procurement, and
performance management etc. (There is much additional complexity in the
provision of effective and efficient services as well, of course.)
Meeting all these needs and generating sustainable social
outcomes requires ‘ownership’ from many key stakeholders, not least the
supplier agencies. They will need to invest large amounts of their time in
designing and maintaining structures, systems and practices to meet these needs
within a very tight resource base. While the system will just about work if
these actors feel ‘done to’, it will not work very effectively or efficiently
as more resource will have to be invested by the commissioning bodies in
monitoring compliance and performance. Likewise without the communities and
politicians authorising the direction of travel, there is the risk that
precious resources will need to be spent on ‘selling’ the plans made. With all
these points in mind, I argue that stakeholder commitment is a vital ingredient
in assembling and running effective and efficient commissioning processes.
Einstein once defined insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting the result to be different. On this basis,
there has been quite a lot of insanity in the UK public services in the past.
Commissioning offers a good deal of hope for reforming how public services
delivered so that new (and better) ways are found to deliver these services
that will lead to better outcomes for all concerned. The regimens that
commissioning requires of both suppliers and commissioners should help to yield
innovation in how citizens are served, and thence helped to live more
fulfilling lives. It should, but will it? Does it? There is an inherent risk in
commissioning that unless the right conditions are built in, the key actors
involved may well end up ‘playing safe’. The latter day version of ‘nobody got
sacked for buying an IBM’ comes into operation, as it were. If the processes
for implementing commissioning fail to foster creativity and innovation, a
significant opportunity will have been lost.
In summary, my position is that for commissioning to work
smoothly, we need decision making methodologies that can hold complexity,
develop commitment and foster creativity. Of course most approaches to public
service commissioning (as seen in the NHS and local government) aim to have
these three ingredients in place. However, I would contend that the approaches
used to install these three ingredients often fall short of the full potential.
For example the approach to complexity is often
interpreted and conducted as detailed needs analyses where seemingly endless
iterations of surveys, focus groups, research and expert input are channelled
into large and turgid reports written by small project teams. Complexity is
synthesised into a single executive summary where the rich diversity of
perspectives is more or less left to one side. Attempts are made to manufacture
commitment through road shows and glossy vision statements. While the need for
creativity is proclaimed, the whole process is so ‘left brained’ & paper
based that very little creativity sees the light of day.
This is where whole system approaches come in as they are
designed to create the optimal conditions for handling complexity, developing
commitment and fostering creativity. The essence of all WS approaches is that
all they focus on enabling authentic conversations that lead to collaboration
not fragmentation. They use methods that tap into people’s imagination and
analytical functions so that both right and left brains are engaged. These
approaches spend most time looking forward to the future so that heads lift up
and energy is found to develop new solutions rather than pick apart what has
not worked well in the past. And, critically, they aim to get the ‘whole system
in the room’ so that everyone has he opportunity to meet the other players in
the system and appreciate their perspectives. Such approaches would nurture the
sense that commissioning is there to be harnessed actively by all involved to
shape better futures, rather than succumb to them.
There are several ‘versions’ of such approaches (which
have also been called ‘large group interventions’) and which have been used
extensively in the NHS commissioning for example. These versions include:
- Open Negotiation (where the key issues to be resolved are identified before a whole system event and then a process is created that enables these issues to be addressed in open forum between the key players)
- World Café (where an ambient atmosphere assists people in focussing on a series of predetermined and emergent questions to identify a particular way forward for the matter in question)
- Open Space (where key players are brought together by an overarching theme and discussions are organised from the floor up around what needs to get discussed and sorted)
- Future Search (where stakeholders spend time identifying key learning from the past, clarifying the current pressures and shaping a new future for the system they represent)
- Open Simulation (where a new way of working is tested in a model situation by the people who will have to make it work in reality so that glitches and advantages can be identified before the ‘go live’ date)
- What is the main purpose?
- What therefore should be the process?
- Which people need to be there?
- What arrangements need to be made regarding the place?
- What needs and demands need to be built into our commissioning cycle?
- As commissioners, what services do we need to source?
- As providers, what services do we need to offer?
- How should we monitor and manage the performance within this system?
In addition to boosting creativity, commitment and the
capacity to hold complexity, using these approaches would bring a range of
significant benefits that are particularly needed at this time in the
development of commissioning in the current climate:
- These approaches will assist in building trust both between the agencies involved and in the commissioning approach itself.
- By engaging a diverse mix of stakeholders in these approaches this will reduce the need to spend resources on educating about and ‘selling’ commissioning to people who need to be up-skilled or persuaded of the approach
- These approaches will help make a break with the past and introduce some fresh flare into the delivery of public services where needed
- Unlike more traditional ‘left brain only’ approaches, these WS methods will help to increase the sense amongst the stakeholders in the mixed economy of the ‘Big Society’ that they are players not pawns in shaping the future of the services involved.
See related links:
- http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/11/making-whole-systems-work.html
- http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2010/03/getting-whole-system-in-room-future.html
- http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2010/03/whole-systems-no-time.html
- http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/improving-whole-systems-with-creativity.html
Just spotted this story in the Guardian about commissioning children's services - makes for interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2011/may/31/childrens-services-survey?&
No comments:
Post a Comment