developing an effective hr service toolkit an effective... · 5. re-invent shared service model...
TRANSCRIPT
Modernisation Agency
www.natpact.nhs.ukNational Primary and Care Trust
Development Programme
Developing an effective HR service:
a toolkit for PCTs
Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 1
ForewordContents
The HR in the NHS Plan (DOH 2002) set out an ambitious strategy for developing the NHS workforce and for modernising NHS services. Effective human resource management is a critical element in creating the culture necessary to deliver modernisation. Developments like Agenda for Change, the new consultant contract and new GMS provide PCTs with powerful new levers to engineer system change. The extent to which PCTs will be able to exploit these opportunities depends in part on the capacity and capability of their HR services.
PCTs face the same challenges irrespective of whether HR services are delivered in-house or through a shared service arrangement. However, many PCTs are critically examining the way that their HR support is organised and delivered, to ensure that their HR function can meet the challenges ahead. The purpose of this toolkit is not to advocate a particular model of provision, but to help PCTs to develop more effective HR functions. Some of the toolkit addresses issues arising from shared service arrangements. Equally, much of the material can be used to think critically about how an in-house HR service is organised.
The toolkit will help you to
think critically about how you organise, measure and evaluate your HR service
self-assess your current HR service and benchmark it against those of other PCTs
develop an effective relationship between your PCT and your HR provider
Some of the tools will be more useful to individual organisations than others. Others will be relevant to different organisations at different times. Above all, we hope that this toolkit will open up different ways of thinking about how to improve the effectiveness of your HR services
AcknowledgementsThis toolkit has been developed in partnership with colleagues from PCTs, Shared Service Providers, Ararna Limited and the Department of Health, and we would like to acknowledge their contribution to this project. A critical reference group has provided input to the development of this toolkit, and outcomes from these discussions have been included as part of this document.
Supporting materialsSupporting materials can be found on the NatPaCT website at www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
March 2004
Contents
Foreword
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
List of figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Page
1
Developing an effective relationship with your HR provider 2
Self Assessment tools 12
Governance Models for HR services 17
One PCT's relationship with its HR provider 3
Quadrants in the Culture/Trust matrix 4
The Culture/Trust matrix 5
Different expectations of PCTs and shared services 7
The perception questionnaire 9
Ulrich's four key roles 12
HR champions functional analysis 13
Self assessment template 14
Worked example of self assessment 15
Self assessment ratings descriptors 16
Some models of joint working 17
Examples of governance models for shared services 19
Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 1
ForewordContents
The HR in the NHS Plan (DOH 2002) set out an ambitious strategy for developing the NHS workforce and for modernising NHS services. Effective human resource management is a critical element in creating the culture necessary to deliver modernisation. Developments like Agenda for Change, the new consultant contract and new GMS provide PCTs with powerful new levers to engineer system change. The extent to which PCTs will be able to exploit these opportunities depends in part on the capacity and capability of their HR services.
PCTs face the same challenges irrespective of whether HR services are delivered in-house or through a shared service arrangement. However, many PCTs are critically examining the way that their HR support is organised and delivered, to ensure that their HR function can meet the challenges ahead. The purpose of this toolkit is not to advocate a particular model of provision, but to help PCTs to develop more effective HR functions. Some of the toolkit addresses issues arising from shared service arrangements. Equally, much of the material can be used to think critically about how an in-house HR service is organised.
The toolkit will help you to
think critically about how you organise, measure and evaluate your HR service
self-assess your current HR service and benchmark it against those of other PCTs
develop an effective relationship between your PCT and your HR provider
Some of the tools will be more useful to individual organisations than others. Others will be relevant to different organisations at different times. Above all, we hope that this toolkit will open up different ways of thinking about how to improve the effectiveness of your HR services
AcknowledgementsThis toolkit has been developed in partnership with colleagues from PCTs, Shared Service Providers, Ararna Limited and the Department of Health, and we would like to acknowledge their contribution to this project. A critical reference group has provided input to the development of this toolkit, and outcomes from these discussions have been included as part of this document.
Supporting materialsSupporting materials can be found on the NatPaCT website at www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
March 2004
Contents
Foreword
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
List of figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Page
1
Developing an effective relationship with your HR provider 2
Self Assessment tools 12
Governance Models for HR services 17
One PCT's relationship with its HR provider 3
Quadrants in the Culture/Trust matrix 4
The Culture/Trust matrix 5
Different expectations of PCTs and shared services 7
The perception questionnaire 9
Ulrich's four key roles 12
HR champions functional analysis 13
Self assessment template 14
Worked example of self assessment 15
Self assessment ratings descriptors 16
Some models of joint working 17
Examples of governance models for shared services 19
Page 2 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 3
Aims of this section
Changing structures versus changing performance
To help you to think critically about how you organise, measure and evaluate your HR service
To help you to develop an effective relationship with your HR provider
Some PCTs have gone through a whole life cycle of different relationships with their HR providers (see Figure 1 opposite). In part, this reflects the tension between the economies of scale provided by shared service arrangements, and the desire for a 'bespoke' service. However, the struggle to find an effective HR service model may also reflect our habit of seeking structural solutions to what are essentially cultural problems. One of the challenges for any organisation is to ensure that there is a cultural fit between the organisation as a whole and its HR service in terms of beliefs, values, priorities and goals. This becomes especially complex in a shared service arrangement involving several parties.
In their book Journey to the Emerald City, Roger Connors and Tom Smith set out a helpful model to understand how an organisation's culture impacts on its performance. They describe how
experiences foster organisational beliefs
beliefs drive action
actions produce results.
For example, the way that people are treated in an organisation will determine their beliefs about how the organisation operates (e.g. what is rewarded, what is punished), which then impacts on behaviours and the results that are achieved. Changing an organisation's culture by aligning experiences and beliefs with the action you want to encourage is the most powerful way to increase organisational performance. The power of cultural factors on performance explains why so many quick fixes we use to improve performance don't work. 'By working with just the top of the pyramid (i.e. by only working with action and results, rather than with experiences and beliefs), leaders leave unchanged the things that can be hardest to change but make the greatest impact on performance' (Connors and Smith 1999).
There are clear lessons here for relationships between PCTs and their HR providers, irrespective of whether those providers are in-house or external. A PCT's first response to perceived 'problems' with their HR service often involves trying to improve performance by using contractual levers or re-structuring management or delivery arrangements (ie in Connors' and Smith's terms, only working at the top of the pyramid).
In contrast, this document suggests that potentially the biggest impact on performance will come from working at the cultural level, by building understanding and trust between the PCT and its HR provider and fostering experiences and beliefs that reinforce the performance culture you want to create.
Section 1 Developing an effective relationship with your HR provider
Issues to consider
Look at Figure 1
Are these scenarios familiar?
Has your PCT gone through a similar cycle?
Has your PCT gone through a similar cycle? How has your organisation tried to change the performance of your HR function: by changing the organizational model, or by working one relationships and people issues?
Figure 1 One PCT's life cycle of relationships with its HR providers
1. In the beginning: accessing HR provision from another NHS trust.The shape of the initial service was financially driven. Set up before PCT established. No trust. No cultural fit.
2. Shared service provisionShape of service driven by break up of host trust. Poor cultural fit, but some economies of scale.
3. Devolution of shared serviceSome 'shared service' capacity devolved to partners. Better cultural fit, but capacity problems and loss of economies of scale.
4. Breakdown of shared serviceMove to in-house provision ('we need our own service' 'we can do this better ourselves!'). Better cultural fit, but more expensive. Capacity and capability problems and loss of economies of scale.
5. Re-invent shared service model'Strategic' HR retained in house, with 'transactional' HR through new shared service arrangement. Recognition of need for cultural fit, but still capacity and boundary problems. Higher cost. Problems agreeing what is 'transactional'.
Notes This is not a continuum. There are variations within these models. Not all PCTs go through all stages. What works well in one area, may not suit another.
Page 2 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 3
Aims of this section
Changing structures versus changing performance
To help you to think critically about how you organise, measure and evaluate your HR service
To help you to develop an effective relationship with your HR provider
Some PCTs have gone through a whole life cycle of different relationships with their HR providers (see Figure 1 opposite). In part, this reflects the tension between the economies of scale provided by shared service arrangements, and the desire for a 'bespoke' service. However, the struggle to find an effective HR service model may also reflect our habit of seeking structural solutions to what are essentially cultural problems. One of the challenges for any organisation is to ensure that there is a cultural fit between the organisation as a whole and its HR service in terms of beliefs, values, priorities and goals. This becomes especially complex in a shared service arrangement involving several parties.
In their book Journey to the Emerald City, Roger Connors and Tom Smith set out a helpful model to understand how an organisation's culture impacts on its performance. They describe how
experiences foster organisational beliefs
beliefs drive action
actions produce results.
For example, the way that people are treated in an organisation will determine their beliefs about how the organisation operates (e.g. what is rewarded, what is punished), which then impacts on behaviours and the results that are achieved. Changing an organisation's culture by aligning experiences and beliefs with the action you want to encourage is the most powerful way to increase organisational performance. The power of cultural factors on performance explains why so many quick fixes we use to improve performance don't work. 'By working with just the top of the pyramid (i.e. by only working with action and results, rather than with experiences and beliefs), leaders leave unchanged the things that can be hardest to change but make the greatest impact on performance' (Connors and Smith 1999).
There are clear lessons here for relationships between PCTs and their HR providers, irrespective of whether those providers are in-house or external. A PCT's first response to perceived 'problems' with their HR service often involves trying to improve performance by using contractual levers or re-structuring management or delivery arrangements (ie in Connors' and Smith's terms, only working at the top of the pyramid).
In contrast, this document suggests that potentially the biggest impact on performance will come from working at the cultural level, by building understanding and trust between the PCT and its HR provider and fostering experiences and beliefs that reinforce the performance culture you want to create.
Section 1 Developing an effective relationship with your HR provider
Issues to consider
Look at Figure 1
Are these scenarios familiar?
Has your PCT gone through a similar cycle?
Has your PCT gone through a similar cycle? How has your organisation tried to change the performance of your HR function: by changing the organizational model, or by working one relationships and people issues?
Figure 1 One PCT's life cycle of relationships with its HR providers
1. In the beginning: accessing HR provision from another NHS trust.The shape of the initial service was financially driven. Set up before PCT established. No trust. No cultural fit.
2. Shared service provisionShape of service driven by break up of host trust. Poor cultural fit, but some economies of scale.
3. Devolution of shared serviceSome 'shared service' capacity devolved to partners. Better cultural fit, but capacity problems and loss of economies of scale.
4. Breakdown of shared serviceMove to in-house provision ('we need our own service' 'we can do this better ourselves!'). Better cultural fit, but more expensive. Capacity and capability problems and loss of economies of scale.
5. Re-invent shared service model'Strategic' HR retained in house, with 'transactional' HR through new shared service arrangement. Recognition of need for cultural fit, but still capacity and boundary problems. Higher cost. Problems agreeing what is 'transactional'.
Notes This is not a continuum. There are variations within these models. Not all PCTs go through all stages. What works well in one area, may not suit another.
Figure 2 Quadrants in the Trust/Culture matrix
Effective relationship (high trust/high cultural fit) This is the ideal relationship and will lead to an HR provider and PCT working harmoniously together. The danger this relationship faces is a breakdown in trust.
Potential for an effective relationship (low trust/high cultural fit) A high cultural fit provides the potential of an immature relationship moving into an effective relationship.
Ineffective relationship (high trust/low cultural fit) This might be the first relationship that is established between an HR provider and a PCT. Developing a cultural fit is critical to making the relationship effective.
Poor relationship (low trust, low cultural fit)The PCT will have a poor relationship with the shared service provider if there is little trust and a poor cultural match.
Page 4 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 5
The Culture/Trust Matrix
Issues to consider
Whether an HR service is provided in-house or through a shared service arrangement, trust and cultural fit between the parties is critical to developing an HR service that supports organisational development. The matrix in Figure 3 plots two key dimensions (culture and trust) to explain the effectiveness of a PCT's relationship with its HR provider. The matrix provides a different paradigm (way of looking at the world) to consider your relationship with your HR provider.
Within the model, the trust dimension is more fragile: trust can be gained or lost overnight. A change in a key stakeholder, such as the appointment of a new chief executive, can have an immediate impact on levels of trust. Cultural fit involves a longer term process, which can take years to build and will continue to grow as the relationship matures.
Where does your organisation sit in the Culture/Trust matrix?What is your organisation's culture: how would you describe to other people 'the way we do things around here?'To what extent are your organisation's values and culture reflected in your HR service?
HIGHCultural fit between PCT and Shared Service
Potential for an Effective Relationship
Low Trust/High Culture
Effective Relationship
High Trust/High Culture
LOW
Trust between PCT and Shared Service
Poor Relationship
Low Trust/Low Culture
Ineffective Relationship
High Trust/Low Culture
LOWCultural fit between PCT and Shared Service
HIGH Trust between PCT and Shared Service
Trust
Figure 3 Culture/Trust Matrix
Cu
ltu
re
Figure 2 Quadrants in the Trust/Culture matrix
Effective relationship (high trust/high cultural fit) This is the ideal relationship and will lead to an HR provider and PCT working harmoniously together. The danger this relationship faces is a breakdown in trust.
Potential for an effective relationship (low trust/high cultural fit) A high cultural fit provides the potential of an immature relationship moving into an effective relationship.
Ineffective relationship (high trust/low cultural fit) This might be the first relationship that is established between an HR provider and a PCT. Developing a cultural fit is critical to making the relationship effective.
Poor relationship (low trust, low cultural fit)The PCT will have a poor relationship with the shared service provider if there is little trust and a poor cultural match.
Page 4 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 5
The Culture/Trust Matrix
Issues to consider
Whether an HR service is provided in-house or through a shared service arrangement, trust and cultural fit between the parties is critical to developing an HR service that supports organisational development. The matrix in Figure 3 plots two key dimensions (culture and trust) to explain the effectiveness of a PCT's relationship with its HR provider. The matrix provides a different paradigm (way of looking at the world) to consider your relationship with your HR provider.
Within the model, the trust dimension is more fragile: trust can be gained or lost overnight. A change in a key stakeholder, such as the appointment of a new chief executive, can have an immediate impact on levels of trust. Cultural fit involves a longer term process, which can take years to build and will continue to grow as the relationship matures.
Where does your organisation sit in the Culture/Trust matrix?What is your organisation's culture: how would you describe to other people 'the way we do things around here?'To what extent are your organisation's values and culture reflected in your HR service?
HIGHCultural fit between PCT and Shared Service
Potential for an Effective Relationship
Low Trust/High Culture
Effective Relationship
High Trust/High Culture
LOW
Trust between PCT and Shared Service
Poor Relationship
Low Trust/Low Culture
Ineffective Relationship
High Trust/Low Culture
LOWCultural fit between PCT and Shared Service
HIGH Trust between PCT and Shared Service
Trust
Figure 3 Culture/Trust Matrix
Cu
ltu
re
Page 6 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 7
Different perceptions, different expectations
Issues to consider
Issues to consider
Defining the relationship you both want
Exercise 1
One of the problems for PCTs seeking to improve the effectiveness of their HR function is that PCTs and their HR service providers often have widely differing views about their relationship and their expectations of each other. This can be true even if the HR provider is 'in-house'. For example, the views of the PCT's operational managers of what they can expect from the PCT's HR service may be very different from the views held by the HR staff themselves.
Are you clear about what senior and operational managers expect of the PCT's HR service? Are these expectations different from those held by the HR staff?
Are senior and operational managers clear about their roles in relation to human resource management? Do they have the skills and knowledge to play these roles?
The risk of a mismatch between the expectations of PCT managers and the expectations of HR staff increases in a shared service arrangement. For example, the views in Figure 4 below were captured from a workshop involving a group of PCTs and Shared service providers.
Look at Figure 4.
Can PCTs and their HR providers develop an effective relationship on the basis of such different perceptions?
How can a PCT develop a better understanding with its HR provider?
Whether an HR service is provided in-house or through a shared service arrangement, the PCT and its HR provider need to invest time to define their shared expectations, and how the parties involved can work more effectively together. The following exercises designed for PCTs and their shared service provider can equally be adapted for use by PCTs with an in-house HR service.
What do we mean by a shared HR service? Working separately, the PCTs and the HR service provider both describe what they understand by the term 'HR Shared service'. Each lists a series of statements beginning 'An HR Shared service….' Each presents to the other using cards, post-its or a flip chart.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
A Shared Services Perspective
Shared HR services:
should not be treated as second class citizens to PCT staff
involve huge challenges and complexity at HR Director level and require a high level of skill
are expected by PCTs to deliver at a strategic level, when SLAs may only specify an operational service
involve difficult communication issues, because of different languages and cultures between organizations
are seen by PCTs as a dumping ground for problems
can involve SLAs, which are unhelpful in setting the wrong cultural tone
do not prevent PCTs from wanting to micro-manage shared services, leading to power struggles and the use of finance to leverage control
involve a lack of understanding and communication
generate difficulties in balancing the sharing information against confidentiality
require that the host organisation's role needs to be defined to ensure equitable treatment
Figure 4 Different expectations of PCTs and Shared service providers
A PCT Perspective
Shared HR services:
involve a customer/client relationship
should provide a service that fits in with the PCT organisational culture, including policies and procedures that fit the PCT culture
involve a SLA with measures on specific services, flexible to PCT needs
should provide a service where the final decision on HR issues should be with the PCT
should be kept close and not at a distance, otherwise there is a loss of control
currently deliver on their agenda not on the PCT agenda
mean the host PCT always gets priority treatment
can provide both transactional and transformational services
provide economies of scale and scope are an advantage
involve conflicts between expectation and delivery of services
“Shared HR services are seen by PCTs in
a consultancy capacity”
“Shared HR services are just a cost-cutting
exercise”
“We are part of the NHS family!”
“Shared HR Services are risk averse”
“Shared HR Services involve efficiencies
and cost management”
“Shared HR Services struggle to deliver
especially on strategic issues”
Page 6 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 7
Different perceptions, different expectations
Issues to consider
Issues to consider
Defining the relationship you both want
Exercise 1
One of the problems for PCTs seeking to improve the effectiveness of their HR function is that PCTs and their HR service providers often have widely differing views about their relationship and their expectations of each other. This can be true even if the HR provider is 'in-house'. For example, the views of the PCT's operational managers of what they can expect from the PCT's HR service may be very different from the views held by the HR staff themselves.
Are you clear about what senior and operational managers expect of the PCT's HR service? Are these expectations different from those held by the HR staff?
Are senior and operational managers clear about their roles in relation to human resource management? Do they have the skills and knowledge to play these roles?
The risk of a mismatch between the expectations of PCT managers and the expectations of HR staff increases in a shared service arrangement. For example, the views in Figure 4 below were captured from a workshop involving a group of PCTs and Shared service providers.
Look at Figure 4.
Can PCTs and their HR providers develop an effective relationship on the basis of such different perceptions?
How can a PCT develop a better understanding with its HR provider?
Whether an HR service is provided in-house or through a shared service arrangement, the PCT and its HR provider need to invest time to define their shared expectations, and how the parties involved can work more effectively together. The following exercises designed for PCTs and their shared service provider can equally be adapted for use by PCTs with an in-house HR service.
What do we mean by a shared HR service? Working separately, the PCTs and the HR service provider both describe what they understand by the term 'HR Shared service'. Each lists a series of statements beginning 'An HR Shared service….' Each presents to the other using cards, post-its or a flip chart.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
A Shared Services Perspective
Shared HR services:
should not be treated as second class citizens to PCT staff
involve huge challenges and complexity at HR Director level and require a high level of skill
are expected by PCTs to deliver at a strategic level, when SLAs may only specify an operational service
involve difficult communication issues, because of different languages and cultures between organizations
are seen by PCTs as a dumping ground for problems
can involve SLAs, which are unhelpful in setting the wrong cultural tone
do not prevent PCTs from wanting to micro-manage shared services, leading to power struggles and the use of finance to leverage control
involve a lack of understanding and communication
generate difficulties in balancing the sharing information against confidentiality
require that the host organisation's role needs to be defined to ensure equitable treatment
Figure 4 Different expectations of PCTs and Shared service providers
A PCT Perspective
Shared HR services:
involve a customer/client relationship
should provide a service that fits in with the PCT organisational culture, including policies and procedures that fit the PCT culture
involve a SLA with measures on specific services, flexible to PCT needs
should provide a service where the final decision on HR issues should be with the PCT
should be kept close and not at a distance, otherwise there is a loss of control
currently deliver on their agenda not on the PCT agenda
mean the host PCT always gets priority treatment
can provide both transactional and transformational services
provide economies of scale and scope are an advantage
involve conflicts between expectation and delivery of services
“Shared HR services are seen by PCTs in
a consultancy capacity”
“Shared HR services are just a cost-cutting
exercise”
“We are part of the NHS family!”
“Shared HR Services are risk averse”
“Shared HR Services involve efficiencies
and cost management”
“Shared HR Services struggle to deliver
especially on strategic issues”
Page 8 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 9
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
What is our perception of the current arrangement?Working separately, the PCTs and the shared service provider both complete the perceptions questionnaire (see Figure 5). You can adapt the questions to fit your local circumstances. For example, the questionnaire can be adapted for use in an internal HR service. Each respondent puts their results onto a flipchart, using coloured stickers or different coloured pens (one colour for PCT respondents; a different colour for the Shared Service respondents).
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
What do we like about the current service? Working separately, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider both complete the phrases'I like ……'or' I like it when……..'to describes features or examples of behaviour that they like about the current HR service. Each lists a series of factors on cards, post-its or a flip chart, before presenting to the other.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
What do we not like about the current service? Working separately, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider both complete the phrases'I do not like ……'or' I do not like it when……..'to describes features or examples of behaviour that they do not like about the current HR service. Each lists a series of factors on post its or on a flip chart, before presenting to the other.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship? Q.4 Shared HR services are risk averse.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.3 The relationship between the PCT and its HR service provider is a customer/client relationship.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.2 Our PCT and our HR provider share the same values and culture
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Figure 5 The Perceptions Questionnaire
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hrA blank template in Word can be downloaded from
Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 10 represents “strongly agree” to what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements?
Q.1 There are clearly defined standards of service for our HR service.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Page 8 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 9
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
What is our perception of the current arrangement?Working separately, the PCTs and the shared service provider both complete the perceptions questionnaire (see Figure 5). You can adapt the questions to fit your local circumstances. For example, the questionnaire can be adapted for use in an internal HR service. Each respondent puts their results onto a flipchart, using coloured stickers or different coloured pens (one colour for PCT respondents; a different colour for the Shared Service respondents).
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
What do we like about the current service? Working separately, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider both complete the phrases'I like ……'or' I like it when……..'to describes features or examples of behaviour that they like about the current HR service. Each lists a series of factors on cards, post-its or a flip chart, before presenting to the other.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship?
What do we not like about the current service? Working separately, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider both complete the phrases'I do not like ……'or' I do not like it when……..'to describes features or examples of behaviour that they do not like about the current HR service. Each lists a series of factors on post its or on a flip chart, before presenting to the other.
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
How do these different perceptions impact on your relationship? Q.4 Shared HR services are risk averse.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.3 The relationship between the PCT and its HR service provider is a customer/client relationship.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.2 Our PCT and our HR provider share the same values and culture
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Figure 5 The Perceptions Questionnaire
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hrA blank template in Word can be downloaded from
Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 10 represents “strongly agree” to what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements?
Q.1 There are clearly defined standards of service for our HR service.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Page 10 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 11
Q.6 A shared HR service can deliver as effective an HR service as an in-house model
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.5 A shared service is a more cost effective option for delivering HR services.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.8 The financial arrangements underpinning the HR service are clear.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.7 There is a clear understanding of what is the responsibility of the PCT and what is the responsibility of the HR provider.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Exercise 5 Fostering a better relationshipWorking together, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider use the products from the previous exercises to identify the behaviours and action that they would like to encourage to make their relationship work more effectively.
What behaviours and action would like to encourage make the relationship work more effectively?
What can you do to positively reinforce the behaviours you wish to encourage?
How do you capture, monitor and revise your mutual expectations?
Note for PCTs with in-house HR servicesAll of above exercises can be easily adapted for use with an in-house HR provider.
Page 10 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 11
Q.6 A shared HR service can deliver as effective an HR service as an in-house model
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.5 A shared service is a more cost effective option for delivering HR services.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.8 The financial arrangements underpinning the HR service are clear.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Q.7 There is a clear understanding of what is the responsibility of the PCT and what is the responsibility of the HR provider.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don't Know
Exercise 5 Fostering a better relationshipWorking together, the PCT(s) and the shared service provider use the products from the previous exercises to identify the behaviours and action that they would like to encourage to make their relationship work more effectively.
What behaviours and action would like to encourage make the relationship work more effectively?
What can you do to positively reinforce the behaviours you wish to encourage?
How do you capture, monitor and revise your mutual expectations?
Note for PCTs with in-house HR servicesAll of above exercises can be easily adapted for use with an in-house HR provider.
Aims of this section
'HR with attitude'
Issue to consider
To provide a framework for considering the key elements of your HR service
To provide a means of self-assessing elements of your HR service
In his book, Human Resource Champions, David Ulrich sets out four key roles that HR professionals need to fulfil to add the greatest value to their organisations (see Figure 6). Thinking of HR in these terms can help PCTs to consider what they are looking for from their HR service and where these roles should sit in organisational terms.
Look the HR functions listed in Figure 7 overleaf.
For each function, which of Ulrich's roles best describes the role that your organisation needs? (tick or cross the boxes as in the example).
Ask your HR service provider to carry out the same exercise. Compare and discuss your results.
What are the implications of Ulrich's model for the type of relationship you want to develop with your HR service provider?
In the context of a shared service, can all of Ulrich's roles be effectively carried out by your shared service?
Section 2 Self-Assessment tools
Page 12 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 13
A blank template in Word can be downloaded from
HR Service Elements Strategic Partner Administrative Change Agent Employee Expert Champion
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
Figure 7 HR Champions - functional analysis
Recruitment
Business Planning
Policy Development
Absence Management
Workforce Planningand Development
Terms and Conditionsof Service
Strategic HR capacity
Risk Management
Payroll
Technical HR Advice
Employment/ Contractual Law
Employee Records
Sickness & Absence
Temporary Staffing
OrganisationalDevelopment
Electronic Service (IT)
Communications
ManagementTraining in HR
Employee Relations
Occupational Health
Benefits
Reward &Remuneration
Surveys
Welfare Issues
IWL
Equal Opportunities
Training andDevelopment
Figure 6 Ulrich's four key roles for HR professionals
Strategic Partner
Change Agent
Administrative Expert
Employee Champion
HR professionals become a strategic partner when they participate in the process of defining business strategy, when they ask questions that move strategy to action and when they design HR practices that align with business strategy.
HR professionals act as change agents when they identify and frame problems, build relationships of trust, solve problems and take action.
HR professionals act as administrative experts when they seek out unnecessary costs, improve efficiency and constantly find new ways to do things better.
HR professionals act as employee champions when they personally spend time with employees and train and encourage managers to do the same. They promote listening and communication, ensuring that employee needs are met and that employees feel valued.
Aims of this section
'HR with attitude'
Issue to consider
To provide a framework for considering the key elements of your HR service
To provide a means of self-assessing elements of your HR service
In his book, Human Resource Champions, David Ulrich sets out four key roles that HR professionals need to fulfil to add the greatest value to their organisations (see Figure 6). Thinking of HR in these terms can help PCTs to consider what they are looking for from their HR service and where these roles should sit in organisational terms.
Look the HR functions listed in Figure 7 overleaf.
For each function, which of Ulrich's roles best describes the role that your organisation needs? (tick or cross the boxes as in the example).
Ask your HR service provider to carry out the same exercise. Compare and discuss your results.
What are the implications of Ulrich's model for the type of relationship you want to develop with your HR service provider?
In the context of a shared service, can all of Ulrich's roles be effectively carried out by your shared service?
Section 2 Self-Assessment tools
Page 12 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 13
A blank template in Word can be downloaded from
HR Service Elements Strategic Partner Administrative Change Agent Employee Expert Champion
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
Figure 7 HR Champions - functional analysis
Recruitment
Business Planning
Policy Development
Absence Management
Workforce Planningand Development
Terms and Conditionsof Service
Strategic HR capacity
Risk Management
Payroll
Technical HR Advice
Employment/ Contractual Law
Employee Records
Sickness & Absence
Temporary Staffing
OrganisationalDevelopment
Electronic Service (IT)
Communications
ManagementTraining in HR
Employee Relations
Occupational Health
Benefits
Reward &Remuneration
Surveys
Welfare Issues
IWL
Equal Opportunities
Training andDevelopment
Figure 6 Ulrich's four key roles for HR professionals
Strategic Partner
Change Agent
Administrative Expert
Employee Champion
HR professionals become a strategic partner when they participate in the process of defining business strategy, when they ask questions that move strategy to action and when they design HR practices that align with business strategy.
HR professionals act as change agents when they identify and frame problems, build relationships of trust, solve problems and take action.
HR professionals act as administrative experts when they seek out unnecessary costs, improve efficiency and constantly find new ways to do things better.
HR professionals act as employee champions when they personally spend time with employees and train and encourage managers to do the same. They promote listening and communication, ensuring that employee needs are met and that employees feel valued.
Figure 8 Self Assessment Template www.natpact.nhs.uk/hrA blank template in Word can be downloaded from
HR Element HR Provider Client Responsive/Timely ProfessionalResponsibility Responsibility
Description
Evidence
Self-score
Benchmark Score
Evaluation/Actions
- What are the roles and responsibilities of the client?
- What information is needed for provider to do their job effectively?
- What is the cost/value of this? (Cost-benefit analysis)
- What are roles and responsibilities of the provider?
- Who carries these out? (Named individuals)
- What makes the client believe they are getting a professional service?
- Have both parties agreed on defining professionalism and agreed on it?
- How quickly are processes turned around?
- Are deadlines set for the task?
- Are timescales realistic for both parties?
- Have both parties agreed on these timescales/ deadlines?
Self Assessment Tool
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr.
Issues to consider
This simple self assessment tool allows PCTs to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their HR services. The tool can be helpful in terms of identifying development needs, or in designing SLAs or other management models. A blank template in MS Word can be downloaded from We have provided a worked example.
The evidence you collect can be translated into a self-score using the self assessment ratings in Figure 10. This provides rating descriptor statements which can be translated into a simple traffic lights system.
The tool can also be used as a benchmarking exercise for the PCT to make comparisons with other organisations (using the benchmark score option).
Which areas of your HR service are giving you cause for concern?
Can you use the self assessment template to define what you want to achieve?
Are there any themes or patterns emerging from your self assessment (in terms of areas of strength or development needs) ?
Can you utilise skills or knowledge from your areas of strength to meet your development needs?
Who are the 'clients' in your model?
Are the 'clients' and HR provider clear about their mutual responsibilities?
Page 14 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 15
Fig 9 A worked example of Self Assessment (Recruitment)
HR Element HR Provider Client Responsive/Timely ProfessionalResponsibility Responsibility
Description
Evidence
Self-score
Benchmark Score
Evaluation/Actions
a) The recruitment process is understood
b) Individuals have clearly defined tasks
c) Timeframes and deadlines have been agreed by both parties on turnaround of vacancies
d) Monitoring and reviewing process is in place on an agreed basis e.g. quarterly
a) All correspondence includes job description, NHS organisation details, venue, time, date of interview, any assessment centre details if applicableb) Polite, courteous at all times, phones are manned 9-5pm, 5 days a week
a) Action of vacancy on receipt
b) Advert requests actioned in 1 day: 1-2 weeks from journal to place in next available issue
c) Application form sent out from all responses within 2 days of receipt
d) All applications are processed after 1 week of closing date by manager
e) Decision made in 24 hours and job offered
a) All documents are approved and checked by Senior HR officerb) Feedback surveys
a) HR dept logs application forms and CVs from all sourcesc + d) Screening of all applications are monitored and trends/analysis reported to manager
a-d) Staff training on recruitment process
a-d) Review meetings minutese) Cost-benefit analysis
a) All relevant job information is provided to HR provider i.e. job descriptions, salary, start date etc.b) Manager who has vacancy will communicate and give updates on changes to HR provider through recruitment processc) Clear timelines have been set and agreed by both partiesd) Both parties will provide feedback on how effective the recruitment process worked e) The cost will be logged and compared with other similar organizations
Figure 8 Self Assessment Template www.natpact.nhs.uk/hrA blank template in Word can be downloaded from
HR Element HR Provider Client Responsive/Timely ProfessionalResponsibility Responsibility
Description
Evidence
Self-score
Benchmark Score
Evaluation/Actions
- What are the roles and responsibilities of the client?
- What information is needed for provider to do their job effectively?
- What is the cost/value of this? (Cost-benefit analysis)
- What are roles and responsibilities of the provider?
- Who carries these out? (Named individuals)
- What makes the client believe they are getting a professional service?
- Have both parties agreed on defining professionalism and agreed on it?
- How quickly are processes turned around?
- Are deadlines set for the task?
- Are timescales realistic for both parties?
- Have both parties agreed on these timescales/ deadlines?
Self Assessment Tool
www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr.
Issues to consider
This simple self assessment tool allows PCTs to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their HR services. The tool can be helpful in terms of identifying development needs, or in designing SLAs or other management models. A blank template in MS Word can be downloaded from We have provided a worked example.
The evidence you collect can be translated into a self-score using the self assessment ratings in Figure 10. This provides rating descriptor statements which can be translated into a simple traffic lights system.
The tool can also be used as a benchmarking exercise for the PCT to make comparisons with other organisations (using the benchmark score option).
Which areas of your HR service are giving you cause for concern?
Can you use the self assessment template to define what you want to achieve?
Are there any themes or patterns emerging from your self assessment (in terms of areas of strength or development needs) ?
Can you utilise skills or knowledge from your areas of strength to meet your development needs?
Who are the 'clients' in your model?
Are the 'clients' and HR provider clear about their mutual responsibilities?
Page 14 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 15
Fig 9 A worked example of Self Assessment (Recruitment)
HR Element HR Provider Client Responsive/Timely ProfessionalResponsibility Responsibility
Description
Evidence
Self-score
Benchmark Score
Evaluation/Actions
a) The recruitment process is understood
b) Individuals have clearly defined tasks
c) Timeframes and deadlines have been agreed by both parties on turnaround of vacancies
d) Monitoring and reviewing process is in place on an agreed basis e.g. quarterly
a) All correspondence includes job description, NHS organisation details, venue, time, date of interview, any assessment centre details if applicableb) Polite, courteous at all times, phones are manned 9-5pm, 5 days a week
a) Action of vacancy on receipt
b) Advert requests actioned in 1 day: 1-2 weeks from journal to place in next available issue
c) Application form sent out from all responses within 2 days of receipt
d) All applications are processed after 1 week of closing date by manager
e) Decision made in 24 hours and job offered
a) All documents are approved and checked by Senior HR officerb) Feedback surveys
a) HR dept logs application forms and CVs from all sourcesc + d) Screening of all applications are monitored and trends/analysis reported to manager
a-d) Staff training on recruitment process
a-d) Review meetings minutese) Cost-benefit analysis
a) All relevant job information is provided to HR provider i.e. job descriptions, salary, start date etc.b) Manager who has vacancy will communicate and give updates on changes to HR provider through recruitment processc) Clear timelines have been set and agreed by both partiesd) Both parties will provide feedback on how effective the recruitment process worked e) The cost will be logged and compared with other similar organizations
Page 16 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 17
Aims of this section
A question of terminology
Issue to consider
To help you to consider different models of joint working which can underpin arrangements between a PCT and an HR provider.
To provide examples of different types of arrangements.
The critical reference group, which helped to develop this guide, identified and defined four common terms used to describe different relationships between NHS organisations and external partners, including HR providers (see Figure 11). Each term reflects a different model of joint working, but sometimes these terms are used almost interchangeably, creating misunderstandings between the parties.
If you are involved in a shared service arrangement for HR, which of the terms in Figure 11 best describes
your current relationship?
how you would like the relationship to develop?
Section 3 Governance models for HR servicesFigure 10 - PCT HR Toolkit: suggested self-assessment rating scale
6
5
4
3
2
1
Ratings of 1 or 2 = red
Rating of 3 = amber
Ratings of 4 , 5 & 6 = green
Ratings descriptors
Very effective in all aspectsAlways demonstrates evidence of achievementNo particular development needs identifiedExceptional standard of achievement
Effective in all aspectsVery frequently demonstrates evidence of achievementLimited development needsAbove acceptable standard
Effective in the majority of aspectsLess effective in some aspectsFairly frequently demonstrates evidence of achievementDevelopment needs in some areasAchieved acceptable standard
Effective in some aspectsLess effective in majority of aspectsFairly infrequently demonstrates evidence of achievementSome development needs in most areas with significant development needs in some areasAcceptable standard in some areas, below standard in others
Ineffective in majority of aspects, Some limited effectiveness in some areasVery infrequently demonstrates evidence of achievementSignificant development needs in most areasBelow acceptable standard
Ineffective in all aspectsNever demonstrates evidence of achievementMajor development needs in all areasSubstantially below acceptable standard
Traffic light system
Figure 11 Different models of joint working
Working Collaboratively
Partnership Working
Shared Service
Outsourcing
This involves like minded organisations coming together to share workload or information. This is not a client/provider relationship. There may not be a written agreement, but there may be terms of reference with shared goals and vision. There is not necessarily equal power, but nor does one organisation dominate another.
This involves an explicit attempt to develop shared agenda in terms of purpose, roles, responsibilities and rules underpinned by shared values. There may or may not be a formal agreement.
This involves a group of activities performed under single direction for two or more NHS organisations with formal agreements, to serve and deliver along common lines. Provides economies of scale and scope including increased buying power. The contract is not usually legally binding.
This involves a formal contractual relationship between NHS employers and (generally) a private sector organisation to provide a specified volume at a specified quality. The relationship is defined by compliance against delivery criteria. The contract is usually legally binding.
Page 16 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 17
Aims of this section
A question of terminology
Issue to consider
To help you to consider different models of joint working which can underpin arrangements between a PCT and an HR provider.
To provide examples of different types of arrangements.
The critical reference group, which helped to develop this guide, identified and defined four common terms used to describe different relationships between NHS organisations and external partners, including HR providers (see Figure 11). Each term reflects a different model of joint working, but sometimes these terms are used almost interchangeably, creating misunderstandings between the parties.
If you are involved in a shared service arrangement for HR, which of the terms in Figure 11 best describes
your current relationship?
how you would like the relationship to develop?
Section 3 Governance models for HR servicesFigure 10 - PCT HR Toolkit: suggested self-assessment rating scale
6
5
4
3
2
1
Ratings of 1 or 2 = red
Rating of 3 = amber
Ratings of 4 , 5 & 6 = green
Ratings descriptors
Very effective in all aspectsAlways demonstrates evidence of achievementNo particular development needs identifiedExceptional standard of achievement
Effective in all aspectsVery frequently demonstrates evidence of achievementLimited development needsAbove acceptable standard
Effective in the majority of aspectsLess effective in some aspectsFairly frequently demonstrates evidence of achievementDevelopment needs in some areasAchieved acceptable standard
Effective in some aspectsLess effective in majority of aspectsFairly infrequently demonstrates evidence of achievementSome development needs in most areas with significant development needs in some areasAcceptable standard in some areas, below standard in others
Ineffective in majority of aspects, Some limited effectiveness in some areasVery infrequently demonstrates evidence of achievementSignificant development needs in most areasBelow acceptable standard
Ineffective in all aspectsNever demonstrates evidence of achievementMajor development needs in all areasSubstantially below acceptable standard
Traffic light system
Figure 11 Different models of joint working
Working Collaboratively
Partnership Working
Shared Service
Outsourcing
This involves like minded organisations coming together to share workload or information. This is not a client/provider relationship. There may not be a written agreement, but there may be terms of reference with shared goals and vision. There is not necessarily equal power, but nor does one organisation dominate another.
This involves an explicit attempt to develop shared agenda in terms of purpose, roles, responsibilities and rules underpinned by shared values. There may or may not be a formal agreement.
This involves a group of activities performed under single direction for two or more NHS organisations with formal agreements, to serve and deliver along common lines. Provides economies of scale and scope including increased buying power. The contract is not usually legally binding.
This involves a formal contractual relationship between NHS employers and (generally) a private sector organisation to provide a specified volume at a specified quality. The relationship is defined by compliance against delivery criteria. The contract is usually legally binding.
Page 18 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 19
NHS Organisation (source)
HR and OD Shared Service for Calderdale and Kirklees PCTs
South East London Shared Services Partnership
West Kent Shared Services Agency
NHS Litigation AuthorityArarna Guidelines for SLAs
Document
Governance Board Principles
SLA TemplateHR SLA from last yearDraft Risk Assessment in conjunction with Lewisham PCTCorporate Top 10 RisksPerformance Mgt Framework, June 2002Performance Mgt Framework Revision, August 2003SLAs x 3 for HR/Training/Education Services for Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark PCTs
HR KPIsSSA Risk Sharing AgreementSSA Governance AgreementHR Spec Table SLA finalSLA Overarching DocumentHR Standards and Specifications
Principles of SLAsSLA-Contract Principles
Type of Agreement
Mutually agreed principle-based relationship
High level SLAs and KPIs
High Level SLA
Generic SLA Generic SLA
Governance models for HR Shared Services
Issues to consider
While service level agreements underpin many shared service arrangements, they vary widely in scope and detail. Some SLAs attempt to describe the full range of service activity and service response. Other agreements are underpinned by key performance indicators (KPIs), which measure performance against expectations. In some cases, partners prefer to build a relationship based on high level principles and shared values.
Figure 12 provides examples of SLAs and other agreements which may underpin a shared services arrangement. The examples differ in their approaches and suit the particular circumstances of individual organisations involved. All are offered as examples rather than models, and all are available on the NatPaCT website.
Do your service level agreements and other mechanisms for managing the shared service arrangement reinforce or undermine the culture you are trying to achieve?
How can a shared service reflect the organisational culture of its client/partner organisations when it may be dealing with several organisations at the same time?
Figure 12 Examples of governance models for HR Shared Services
Final thoughts
We want to hear from you
Supporting materials
Developing an effective HR service is an iterative process. Your HR function needs to adapt to meet the new challenges you face. However, most PCTs are struggling with the twin issues of HRM capacity and capability. If not addressed, these issues threaten your ability to exploit the opportunities offered by developments like Agenda for Change, nGMS, and the new consultant contract.
This toolkit suggests that investing in the relationships that underpin your service model may prove a more productive investment than re-defining the model itself. Adopting this approach will involve developing a better understanding between HR professionals and managers of their respective roles, and ensuring that both groups having the knowledge, skills and support to carry out these roles effectively.
Do you want to
contribute to the debate?
offer a different perspective?
provide more examples of local arrangements?
Then please email
with HR in the subject field.
Supporting materials can be found on the NatPaCT website at www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
Roger Connors and Tom SmithJourney to the Emerald City Prentice Hall, 1999
Dave Ulrich Human Resource Champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering resultsHarvard Business School Press, 1997
REFERENCES
Page 18 Building your HR Capacity - A toolkit for PCTs - Page 19
NHS Organisation (source)
HR and OD Shared Service for Calderdale and Kirklees PCTs
South East London Shared Services Partnership
West Kent Shared Services Agency
NHS Litigation AuthorityArarna Guidelines for SLAs
Document
Governance Board Principles
SLA TemplateHR SLA from last yearDraft Risk Assessment in conjunction with Lewisham PCTCorporate Top 10 RisksPerformance Mgt Framework, June 2002Performance Mgt Framework Revision, August 2003SLAs x 3 for HR/Training/Education Services for Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark PCTs
HR KPIsSSA Risk Sharing AgreementSSA Governance AgreementHR Spec Table SLA finalSLA Overarching DocumentHR Standards and Specifications
Principles of SLAsSLA-Contract Principles
Type of Agreement
Mutually agreed principle-based relationship
High level SLAs and KPIs
High Level SLA
Generic SLA Generic SLA
Governance models for HR Shared Services
Issues to consider
While service level agreements underpin many shared service arrangements, they vary widely in scope and detail. Some SLAs attempt to describe the full range of service activity and service response. Other agreements are underpinned by key performance indicators (KPIs), which measure performance against expectations. In some cases, partners prefer to build a relationship based on high level principles and shared values.
Figure 12 provides examples of SLAs and other agreements which may underpin a shared services arrangement. The examples differ in their approaches and suit the particular circumstances of individual organisations involved. All are offered as examples rather than models, and all are available on the NatPaCT website.
Do your service level agreements and other mechanisms for managing the shared service arrangement reinforce or undermine the culture you are trying to achieve?
How can a shared service reflect the organisational culture of its client/partner organisations when it may be dealing with several organisations at the same time?
Figure 12 Examples of governance models for HR Shared Services
Final thoughts
We want to hear from you
Supporting materials
Developing an effective HR service is an iterative process. Your HR function needs to adapt to meet the new challenges you face. However, most PCTs are struggling with the twin issues of HRM capacity and capability. If not addressed, these issues threaten your ability to exploit the opportunities offered by developments like Agenda for Change, nGMS, and the new consultant contract.
This toolkit suggests that investing in the relationships that underpin your service model may prove a more productive investment than re-defining the model itself. Adopting this approach will involve developing a better understanding between HR professionals and managers of their respective roles, and ensuring that both groups having the knowledge, skills and support to carry out these roles effectively.
Do you want to
contribute to the debate?
offer a different perspective?
provide more examples of local arrangements?
Then please email
with HR in the subject field.
Supporting materials can be found on the NatPaCT website at www.natpact.nhs.uk/hr
Roger Connors and Tom SmithJourney to the Emerald City Prentice Hall, 1999
Dave Ulrich Human Resource Champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering resultsHarvard Business School Press, 1997
REFERENCES
Modernisation Agency
www.natpact.nhs.ukNational Primary and Care Trust
Development Programme
The National Primary and Care Trust Development Programme2nd floor Blenheim House
West One, Duncombe Street Leeds LS1 4PLTel: 0113 254 3800Fax: 0113 254 3809
email: [email protected]
March 2004