|
home | strategy development | strategy
skills | site
index | access
keys
Institutional change
>
in practice
The implementation of new policies often calls for
changes to existing institutions, or the creation of new organisations.
Institutional change is therefore an important part of detailed policy
design, involving structures, processes and cultures.
It can be harder to create institutional change within
an existing organisation than to create a new body, whose culture and
approach can be specifically designed around required activities.
Conversely, structural change can be time-consuming and divert scarce
resources and energy. Further guidance on planning for organisational
change can be found under organisational
analysis and change
management.
The extent of the institutional change required will
depend on the degree to which the new policy differs from current
policies. At the simplest level, a new policy can be incorporated within
the work of an existing department, while at the most complex level a
whole new organisation may need to replace one or more existing
departments.
In all instances, however, there are a number of common
criteria that should be assessed, whether designing a new institution or
changing an existing institution to deliver a new policy:
- What is the role and remit of the new institution? How should it
meet the needs of its consumers and users?
- How is the new institution distinct from other institutions? Will it
replace existing structures or is it entirely new? How should it work
with related bodies?
- To whom is the new institution accountable? What performance
measures need to be introduced? What are the Ministerial reporting
arrangements?
- How should the new institution be organised? What internal
governance structures are required?
- What capabilities are required within the new institution? How are
suitable employees to be identified, recruited and trained?
- What capacity does the new institution need (in terms of caseload,
number of users etc.)?
- How will employees of the new institution be incentivised to deliver
its objectives?
- What infrastructure will the new institution need (IT systems,
premises, vehicles etc.)? Can these be adapted from existing
organisations or must they be built from scratch?
- What funding does the new institution need? What are the possible
sources of funding? Will existing funds be redirected or are new funds
needed?
There may well be options under each of these criteria,
so it is important to make explicit trade-offs between different
approaches. One way to do this is to generate a number of alternative
structures for the new institution, which can then be discussed with key
stakeholders to select the final organisational design.
It is also important to consider the degree of
difficulty involved in creating the new organisation - this should be
one of the criteria that is taken into account when deciding on the final
organisational design. A key part of this is ensuring clear communication
with all staff who are involved, particularly if an existing institution
is being changed.
Strengths
- Ensures that the organisation which will be responsible for
implementing a new policy has the right skills and resources to do so.
- Makes explicit the trade-offs between various approaches.
- 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.
|
^ top
|
