« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Section Four: The CitiStat Panel Process
Introduction
4.1 This section examines the nature of the Panel process and how this has worked in the Scottish context. It examines the dynamics of the CitiStat sessions themselves and how the way the process has been structured in each case study has acted to provide both opportunities and constraints on the process. Unanticipated outcomes of the Panel process are also discussed and a comparison made with different performance management and accountability processes in use in the different case study organisations.
Confrontation and challenge
4.2 The confrontational approach of the Baltimore CitiStat model has not been adopted in the case studies. CitiStat sessions have still been challenging, but have not been particularly adversarial. Some participants would like them to be more adversarial and find this element of the model useful. Most found that a strict 'Baltimore style' approach was artificial and was generally felt not to sit well within the existing culture, leadership and organisational style of the case study agencies.
"One of the things we're doing is kind of moulding CitiStat to our way of working which is not necessarily a bad thing, although if the desire for CitiStat was that it was going to deliver those kind of meetings where you said 'why haven't you done this, do it by next week' then we've failed."
4.3 The NHS Ayrshire and Arran case study, in particular, has been concerned with developing the model on a partnership basis and began to reframe the model to make it appropriate for a partnership context and to promote dialogue.
4.4 However, the challenge of the process has been welcomed by most participants. Operational managers have to explain their performance and say what action they propose to take to address poor performance. This has been most effective where staff have ownership of the indicators and targets as the process itself gives them the opportunity to refine these and make them work better for service priorities and management. A previous 'culture of politeness' where non-executives " were asked to be supportive about something or front things in a nice way, not being asked to ask difficult questions" has been challenged by rules of engagement which combine respect with an absolute focus on scrutiny, accountability, and improvement. The Panel process also has educative benefits for both sides, including non-executives.
"The non-execs seem to understand the business much better than they did before . . . that's been a big cultural change for non-execs and execs, [who are] not used to non-execs asking hard questions on that kind of regular basis".
4.5 The process has also given senior executives the opportunity to improve their understanding of operations and the challenges in terms of barriers and resources. At the same time, it has allowed operational managers to understand the corporate priorities and drivers for organisational change and provided the impetus for communication across the wider organisation.
"I sit here on a monthly basis and get challenged by the Chief Executive of this authority then I need to let all of my people know that that's happening...because I'm being challenged on what's happening at the front line - I need to get that out to the four corners of the services that I have responsibility for."
4.6 At best, the Panel process has seeded a new culture and rules of engagement which combine respect with an ability to ask 'difficult questions' through a clear focus on scrutiny of data, accountability, and performance improvement.
How the process has worked
Clarity of roles and responsibilities
4.7 The Panel process has enabled clarity of roles and responsibilities to be articulated. Through this process, CitiStat appears to have driven an improved adherence to existing policies and procedures. This dialogue and face to face exchange between key stakeholders coming together with the common aim of driving performance improvements has been a vital element of CitiStat.
Focus on generating action and change
4.8 The model's focus on generating action and change has been significant and refreshing for both Panel and Podium members. It has retained a focus on the key issues and avoided lengthy explanations and excuses. It has significantly speeded up the process for generating ideas, driving improvements and achieving results.
Challenge to the pace of decision-making
4.9 This speeding up of the pace does bring some tensions within a local government context where decision-making through committees tends to be much slower. CitiStat does challenge this pace of decision-making through the frequency of meetings and use of more recent data and raises questions about how to ensure that local authorities retain democratic accountability while at the same time remaining focused on driving performance.
Balancing democratic accountability and driving performance
4.10 The balance between democratic accountability and the impetus for driving performance has been handled differently across the case studies. In Aberdeen and NHS Tayside, the involvement of the Council Leader and Board Chairman respectively have been critical in allowing clear priorities to be communicated and resourced. In Edinburgh, there has been some ambiguity about the roles of elected members who have sat as observers and some participants felt that the process would be more adversarial and beneficial if the Council Leader had been a member of the Panel. In NHS Ayrshire and Arran the process itself raised questions about the accountability between the NHS and the three local authorities, and the need to clarify the joint accountability of the different agencies for reaching performance targets.
4.11 These cultural and accountability differences raise a number of implications for the design, value and support for the CitiStat process in any future implementation of the model across the public sector. These issues are discussed in more detail in section 6.
High-level involvement
4.12 The involvement of Chief Executives, non-Executive Board members or Council Leaders on the Panel has been crucial. This senior level buy-in to the process has been empowering at middle management level, by promoting faster change and the possibility to influence future changes towards improvement.
"It's actually been very empowering because we've got a set of data, albeit it may not be the ultimate dataset we need and it may change with time, but we're focussing on a number of hot spots with very, very senior buy in. When the action comes out of a meeting that this needs to change, we know it's got the full authority and empowerment we need to make that change. So rather than going through two or three years to do a change process as you would before, it can now be done very quickly."
4.13 Without this level of commitment, there was a very clear view that the process would have been seen as a wasted effort, described by one participant as 'just another exercise that we've all been through before'.
4.14 This level of senior buy-in to the process is seen to generate behavioural and cultural change over time. It is seen as vital in preventing managers within an organisation falling back into the 'comfort zone' and usual ways of working.
"I think without that focal point, without the most important person in the authority, everybody falls back into the comfort zone."
4.15 High level expectations of continuity of attendance each time were also seen as important. This developed a stronger corporate memory, continuity and improved the operation of the model.
Recognition of achievements
4.16 Another important element of the value of high level involvement which was perhaps unanticipated from the Baltimore experience has been praise and public recognition of particular achievements or improvements.
"To be fair the Panel did give generous praise when we turned round some actions particularly in driving down sickness absence. And you don't often get a lot of praise from local authorities and so it becomes addictive. It's like a drug - next time round we want to get a wee bit more praise, we want to move forward…and that in itself acts as a driver."
" There has been an improvement in the way the part of the service I work in has been perceived by the Chief Executive and the Council Leader."
4.17 It was acknowledged that to sustain the model in the longer term, behavioural change was required, so that Panel members ' almost work ourselves out of a job' as managers start to scrutinise performance on a more routine basis and self-scrutiny, accountability, bringing solutions and improvements come to be seen as the norm.
4.18 This raises issues about the sustainability of this level of support for the process discussed in section 6. Indeed, some participants felt that people would not have got round the table in the first place without the interest of the First Minister in the Pilot.
Contrast with existing performance management and accountability processes
4.19 There are a number of features of CitiStat that make it distinctive and different from other performance management and accountability processes and these are discussed again in Section 6.3. This section discusses some generalised contrasts with existing and traditional performance management and accountability processes. These contrasts present a number of issues in relation to the future of CitiStat in Scotland discussed more fully in section 6.
4.20 CitiStat has been challenging, more than confrontational; this challenge has generally been welcomed and seen as useful by contrast to traditional committee processes, which meet less frequently and where there are extensive written reports and very limited time to address them in detail.
4.21 The analysis and use of data to support more effective and targeted questioning is unique to CitiStat. The high level involvement, face-to-face interaction with operational staff present in the room and the opportunity for dialogue on service issues were all valued.
"I found it useful being able to speak to the Chief Executive directly which I don't get the opportunity to do at any other time. Currently my Director and my Head of Service troop up to a plethora of committee meetings where they sit for hours on end twiddling their thumbs, waiting for their item to be hauled up - what a waste of time that is!"
"As a driver for change, CitiStat is very, very powerful and it's cutting through a lot of the stasis that's been existing in public service for years to be honest."
4.22 The clear focus on performance within a short timeframe compares favourably with traditional committee processes in local government. In Aberdeen there was some evidence that Elected Members liked the increased frequency of meetings compared to committee meetings which occur about every eight weeks. In Edinburgh, there was seen to be some overlap with their Scrutiny Committee processes and this gave an air of artificiality to some of the sessions. However, overall CitiStat was seen as more interrogational, tougher and more focused than Scrutiny Committees with a greater emphasis on follow up information and action; indeed CitiStat was seen as a possible model for refining some of their scrutiny processes.
4.23 The use of 'real-time' data was also unusual and added an edge to the proceedings in all the case studies. The frequency and consequent currency of the data provided a chance to "build corporate memory of achievement and non-delivery" because failure to deliver will be followed-up the next month.
4.24 Scrutiny and governance was felt to be enhanced by the CitiStat process through the ability to identify failing plans earlier on and submit new plans.
"It had become clear over a period of time that no progress towards the target had been made. The Chairman said, 'take this all away and come back with another plan, because the plan didn't achieve what it set out to achieve and you set your own target and haven't made it.' In a longer term frame, we're beginning to see when something doesn't shift."
4.25 In NHS Ayrshire and Arran the process tested working assumptions about existing partnership agreements; these were shown not to provide a robust performance management framework for partnership working. The CitiStat process was thus the vehicle through which the NHS Board brokered a first meeting of the four organisations with an interest in delayed discharge. This proved to be ambitious and only partially successful in relation to original intentions; however, it has still been an important process which has illustrated the need to clarify joint accountability for the achievement of targets.
4.26 The more challenging culture heralded by the CitiStat process was acknowledged and it was recognised that there may be some 'casualties' in terms of staff: "this will influence change and the speed of change. People who can't adapt will drop off or do something else". One of the unanticipated outcomes of the process was to expose attitudinal differences amongst managers.
"Those managers who have got a bit of wisdom about them do appreciate that this is an agenda that they had better get on with. There are tentative signs of some kind of culture change taking place in certain quarters."
4.27 The scope for using CitiStat as a driver of cultural and organisational change is discussed in section 5.
4.28 In general, most comparisons of CitiStat and other performance management and accountability processes were favourable. The exception was in relation to the resources required and the intensity of effort of the CitiStat process. The NHS Tayside case study concluded that within existing resources, work on CitiStat could not continue in the medium to long term as an add-on to current positions because of its resource intensiveness, and concerns about resources were shared across the case studies. These are discussed more fully in section 5.
« Previous | Contents | Next »