can scrutiny cope....... without a scope ?? ian mortimer - resident involvement manager
TRANSCRIPT
CAN SCRUTINY COPE ....... WITHOUT A SCOPE ??
Ian Mortimer - Resident
Involvement Manager
Aims of the workshop
What is a scopeThe importance of effective scoping within a scrutiny review
How to avoid the perils of scope creep
Good scope, bad scope
Identify area to scrutinise
Scope your review
Collect information
Compare and challenge
Recommendations – evidence
based
So what – evaluate,
monitor and review
General points
• Scoping occurs after a review area has been determined
• It informs what the reviews aims and objectives will be
• It determines how the review should be organised and tackled
• It helps a group agree what methods should be used• It helps you to focus on your work• It helps you meet deadlines• It helps you plan your work activities• It prevents you from going down blind alleys that
lead nowhere or to very little effect• In short... It outlines what needs to be achieved and
how it will be achieved
Feb 2015 – RSP project plan 0.1.
Resident Scrutiny Panel
Investigation Project Plan
Preparation Stage – Scoping out the Investigation
Area to be investigated North Lincolnshire Homes (NLH)- Grounds Maintenance service contract specification Members of the Scrutiny Panel involved Tony Sanderson (Chair), Bill Drinkeld, Sam Taylor, Tim Mills, Harry Mortimer, Carol Lightburn,
Malcolm Borrill, Victoria Fernandez How was the investigation triggered? Request from NLHs EMT and VFM/Procurement Manager Investigation start date 27 January 2015 Investigation end date 22 April 2015
What will be included in the investigation? Key elements that should be included within a potential contract extension/new contract specification for the Grounds Maintenance service, due 2015. This will involve RSP members :-
Identifying future service improvements and enhancements for consideration within a new contract specification/contract extension ( e.g. performance, standards, contract monitoring , VFM etc)
Determining how the contract is currently administered, monitored and delivered and its resultant impact on NLH , residents and communities
Establishing resident perceptions and expectations of the service Ensuring that any future contract is tailored around the needs of the
tenants and local communities Ensuring that any future contract delivers social value and high
outcomes for those who it affects
What will be excluded from the investigation?
Service charges NLHs contract performance framework Prescribed issues affecting contract management where the RSP
have limited influence e.g. cost, price indexes, schedule of rates, annual uplifts etc
Services and departments to be involved NLH Grounds Maintenance Client team, NLH Procurement Manager, Resident Involvement team Staff members to be involved Richard Clark, Emma McGowan, Holly Wilson, J ennifer Allen , Ian Mortimer
Resident Scrutiny Panel Investigation 7 – North Lincolnshire Homes Grounds Maintenance service
Not started On-going Complete
Key stages/ Dates
w/c 26/1
w/c 2/2
w/c 9/2
w/c 16/2
w/c 23/2
w/c 2/3
w/c 9/3
w/c 16/3
w/c 23/3
w/c 30/3
w/c 7/4
w/c 14/4
w/c 21/4
Receive background documents from NLH
Read, analyse and produce summary of key learning points
Presentation by NLH Managers
Research national good practice
Analysis and summary of good practice
Prepare questions for Ground Control Contract Manager
Prepare questions for resident survey
Conduct resident survey
Analyse resident survey
Presentation by Ground Control Project Manager
Scope Creep
Occurs when a change to the review is undertaken when the review is already underway
Causes the project to drift away from its original purpose – can end up derailing a review
It has a negative impact on the review as it impacts on the work, resources and timescales already allocated to the review
What was excluded initially , is now included therefore making the review larger and longer to complete
It is becoming increasingly a common failure of completing reviews
Is all scope creep negative though ??
How to avoid scope creep
Fully analyse and gather requirements at the start of the review
Have measures in place for scrutiny members to discuss and agree the risks of amending the original scope – what impact will it have in the long term ?
Is the additional work, necessary, will it really add value ?
Learn to say no. In extreme cases, stop the review so that
additional requirements can be integrated rather than tacked on ( this should be avoided as much as possible though)
True or false ? – Good scope/bad scope Comment True/False
1 You can carry out a scrutiny review without the need for a scope
2 A scope helps a review to stay on track
3 You can change the scope during the review as many times as you want
4 A scope doesn’t need to be agreed by all members of the group
5 Scoping is a fundamental part off any scrutiny review
6 Scope “creep” is generally regarded as a good thing within a scrutiny review
7 Having a scope helps you cope
8 2 reviews in 5 don’t get completed on time because of scoping issues
9 The lack of a robust scope is one of the 2 main reasons as to why scrutiny reviews fail
Group discussion
We are the scrutiny panel for EMTPF housing organisation and for our next review we have decided to investigate...
HOW WE LET EMPTY HOMES/VOID PROPERTIES
Provide examples of what areas of the above the review should focus on as part of our initial scoping work (i.e. What to include, what to exclude)
Group discussion
We are the scrutiny panel for EMTPF housing organisation and for our next review we have decided to investigate...
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Provide examples of what areas of the above the review should focus on as part of our initial scoping work (i.e. What to include, what to exclude)
Any Questions