NHS HR Review Feedback

1. East Renfrewshire CHCP and East Renfrewshire Council East Renfrewshire Council centralised its HR function in April 2010 and the recruitment of the first fulltime HR Business Partner into CHCP was recruited as an integrated HR role for CHCP supporting both NHS and local authority employees. Although the post was a Local Government one the recruitment process was performed with both Council and NHS involvement. The agreement was that the NHS would support the CHCP by providing: (1) Payment of £18,000 which funds 33% of the Council HRBP position (Grade 14) (2) 2 days of Band 7 (Catriona Reid) with no holiday cover. In July 2012 the post was changed to job share. At this stage the Council’s wish was to advertise the other half of the job share position however the NHS were starting an HR review so requested that the position was not filled but instead cover would be provided for the half of the post until the NHS HR review reached a conclusion. During this time the £18,000 payment was suspended. As part of this arrangement half of the post covers Local Authority and the other half covers NHS. This arrangement has continued to this day however it would be beneficial to resolve with a permanent agreement through this review and changing to ensure that both halves of the job role perform an integrated function covering both Local Authority and NHS. When the role was first set-up there was a split of 2/3 Council cover and 1/3 NHS however it was has been felt at times that it is a struggle to cover all the issues affecting NHS employees with the available resource. There is a requirement for 1 fulltime integrated HR business partner to cover the CHCP employees covering both local government and NHS issues. However there are many complex and long-running cases resulting in a large amount of time being spent coaching managers on the situations so it is essential that all transactional work relating to CHCP is fully supported. It would be beneficial to understand how this transactional work would be supported as pulling this into the centre could be a problem. The 2 days cover of the Band 7 without holiday cover can be tight at times as there is a lack of administration support. This results in HRBP getting involved in less complex sickness absence and recruitment issues which results in not being able to spend as much time on the more strategic issues. Our strong preference would be for the NHS to continue to devolve some supporting staff time to the CHCP/Partnership. We do not support the proposition that Learning and Education resource should be centralised and seek that a proportion of this is devolved to the partnership. We have a successful Learning and Development team within the CHCP predominantly funded by the Council but with a contribution made by the NHS to the salary of the team leader and a very small (inadequate) amount of resource aligned to the team. We believe we should build on this to create an integrated team for the staff of the CHCP/Partnership. As is currently the case the team would link to the Council and NHS corporate teams for elements of the programme. The CHCP is going through major change over the next few years as a result of the move towards prevention and early intervention and the Early Years change fund agenda. This is resulting in restructures and change in working practices which

require HR support. The Council is currently funding an additional post to support this project work. What we would be looking for? One senior Business Partner post that reports to the Council’s HR Manager and into the NHS system and fully supports the integrated CHCP. Increased support at Band 7 to adequately cover the case load – this may be in the form of increased admin resource or changes to how the transactional support is currently performed. A fair share of the Learning and Development resource to be devolved to an integrated CHCP service. Although not in the scope of this review we would like to see OD resource devolved and aligned with the learning and development function.

Response

The Health and Social Care Partnership would be supported by a Business Partner as set out. The funding split would be agreed. The increased central resource would provide for economies of scale and expertise, and provide better support to Health and Social Care Partnerships.

The management of the services provided and associated resources would be agreed through the proposed Service Delivery Board, this would also determine the balance between the dedicated resources, and the central support.

2. West Dunbartonshire CHCP

Comments on HR proposal Following restructure in 2006 paper outlines a broadly helpful direction beyond constraints of current model which is no longer fit for purpose. With some of the organisational changes and forthcoming pressures which have been identified in the paper it is necessary for the function to change its current model. Some of the comments on the proposal are as follows: • Agree with proposition that “one size does not fit all” and the model needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the organisations differing needs. The paper describes having two different approaches in Acute and Partnerships which seems sensible. The paper also recognises the complexity and differing integration arrangements for future HSCP’s and the need for the organisation to respond to these differing needs. • For the Business Partner Role to be successful it needs to be situated in the business units. • The HR delivery Board will provide a mechanism for ensuring standards are met and the service is equitable. Membership and constitution will be critical for its success to ensure it provides the function as described in the paper.

• HR does need to change from being reactive to proactive. This relies on managers assuming more responsibility for HR policy and people management, this will require more than a training programme and rely on a cultural shift for both HR and Managers. This will need be supported from strong commitment for service to change and service level agreement which articulates what HR will do. Otherwise there is a danger of reverting back to “old ways of working” for both Managers and HR Staff. Investment will also be required in Distributed Leadership across the HR function to ensure we embed new ways of working and we do not fall into the trap of relying on just senior roles to lead the change. It will take time for the new structure to bed in and the organisation needs to be prepared for this. A transitional strategy will be required to support the shift to new ways of working to enact some of the proposals articulated in the paper. • The paper states there are differing views on integration of HR/LE and OD activity. For the new model to work it’s critical that there is consolidation of these functions. • The paper clearly articulates the strengthening of Workforce Planning and accurately reflects how our current model works and some of its deficiencies. With the current spot light on efficiency and saving plans it even more important we invest in workforce analytics to identify areas of risk and inform longer term business planning across the organisation. The draft proposed structure suggests separate talent and succession planning functions. It would make more sense if this was combined in Workforce Planning and Development section rather than being separate functions. There is clear alignment in the activities and it makes no sense to separate them out. • The paper suggests a skills audit of HR function to assess existing gaps and inform future deployment of resources. However the paper does not comment beyond HR Directors role how we ensure on going coordinated and joined up professional development for the HR Function. We need to ensure we develop staff across all levels of the organisations and ensure better working across functions. Apart from HR delivery Board the paper does not provide much detail on this area. We could look at models employed across other professional groups in the service i.e. nursing to consider how we improve cross working and consistency across the service. Consideration needs to be given to this as the proposal develops particularly in relation to our own succession planning. • The paper mentions e-Ess but does not discuss how we improve use of HR intranet page as part our of delivery model. This could be used as a self service point for managers which we are currently not utilising. This needs to be embedded into one of the roles in the new structure to allow for a single point of coordination to ensure the intranet site is streamlined, maintained and customer focused.

Response

Noted. Membership and consultation of the Service Delivery Board will be critical and proposals will be brought forward. It is also agreed that a transitional strategy will be necessary; and an action plan to support implementation will be created. The comment on development and succession planning is well made, and will be part of the action to be taken following the skills audit.

3. Glasgow City CHP The comments and questions below reflect the discussion of the Glasgow City CHP HR department in relation to the paper Review of HR Function and the proposed structure change to the HR function. These comments are submitted as part of the consultation process.

Process

Will there be a further opportunity for consultation/ comment when there is more information available, such as a structure and job descriptions? 2/ What will be the process and timescales for slotting into posts? Will there be an opportunity to fully consider options, functions and job descriptions? 3/ Who will be involved in the next steps in this process and be involved in deciding the future structure and process to align people to posts? Will there be HR representatives on this group? 4/ Will any staff be displaced and in a redeployment situation? 5/ When going through a process to align staff to posts, can we ensure equality of opportunity when staff are currently carrying out the same/similar roles on different bandings? 6/ How and when will there be a response to the consultation?

Response

It is recognised that the detailed structure and the job descriptions will require to be put in place. This will be overseen by a Programme Board, involving staff side representatives from UNISON and UNITE. This will oversee the process for matching to posts in the new structure, in line with the Board’s Workforce Change Policy, and to a timescale to be determined. It is not intended that staff are displaced but this may be a consequence of roles changing. As stated any changes will be made in accordance with the Board’s Workforce Change Policy. Business Partner Role 7/ The report refers to HR taking a more strategic approach however the Head’s of HR and Senior HR Advisors already take a strategic approach when working with management teams – how will this change? 8/ The report states that the HR Business Partner will be directing issues to specialist functions. Will everything go via them or will there be a direct route to the specialist functions? 9/ What issues will the Business Partner deal with? The report states ‘by exception – specialist support’. 10/ Who will have the opportunity to apply for HR business partner’s roles? 11/ Will the HR Business Partner have a team? If so, what is the structure, bandings and roles?

Response

The job description for the HR Business Partners is being prepared. The report stresses the importance of the overall HR function increasing its ability to support organisational strategy, and lessening its involvement in more routine people management issues. The HR Business Partners will determine the level of specialist support they require. The HR Business Partners will determine this through the Service Delivery Board. For some areas, such as recruitment, line managers, will continue to access directly but the HR Business Partners will be directly involved in setting the service delivery standards. It is envisaged that existing Heads of HR will be considered for the HR Business Partner role. The split of resources between dedicated terms and central functions will determined. Specialist Functions 12/ There is no detail in relation to the specialist functions. An explanation of each is required to fully understand the function. 13/ Will the specialist functions provide a service to both Acute and Partnership’s or will there be separate teams? 14/ What is the structure within the specialist functions? Is there a manager for each stream? What are the bandings within the structure and will this be consistent between the different existing HR teams as there are currently a range of roles and bandings. 15/ Will there be a geographical split within ER in order to maintain links with local managers? 16/ Will there be a split based on ER issues within the ER function? i.e. Grievance, Discipline, Attendance etc. 17/ Will the transactional team and the ER team be closely linked? 18/ Where does attendance management sit within the structure – transactional or ER? The role of managers 19/ If managers have to take on more responsibility in terms of tasks currently carried out by HR, how will consistency and quality of practice be monitored? 20/ How will consideration be given to management capacity and how in-depth will the training be?

Response

The detail of the remit of the central functions will be worked up, however they will be based on the existing central functions. It is envisaged the central functions will provide support across the whole organisation, however, the operational arrangements will require to be developed. It is likely that each specialist function will have a senior lead; whether functions can be managed collectively will require to be determined. The grades and bandings for posts will be determined through job matching and evaluation. In relation to employee relations, whether work will be allocated by the volume of cases. The nature of the transactional team also requires being determined. The processing of attendance management will be within the transactional activity, but management action, remaining with line managers. The role of managers, in people management issues will be enhanced, and as part of the monitoring of performance and quality, improved HR metrics will be required. Skills Audit / Career Development 21/ When will the skills audit take place and what will this involve? 22/ Will the structure be developed prior to the skills audit and then align staff to posts or will the skills audit determine the structure? 23/ Will there be opportunities for career progression within the specialist functions? 24/ Will there be an opportunity to move between the specialist functions?

Response

A proposal for the Skills Audit has been prepared and being considered by the HR Executive Group. It is likely that this will be undertaken in June/July 2014. It is likely that the structure will be determined and the skills audit used as part of the process to align staff to posts, and to identify gaps which will require to be filled. The new model should provide greater opportunity for career progression being a better mix of generalist/specialist roles, and it is intended that there should be greater movement between generalist/specialist roles to enhance skills and career development. Transactional Services 25/ What support will be available for staff within the transactional team on a day to day basis and in terms of career progression – learning and development to progress a career in HR.? As HR assistants are currently based within teams and work closely with HR advisors, this provides good opportunity for development. 26/ There is a concern that there will be a loss of skill within the HR admin transactional team if the work is tightly controlled.

Response

Those staff working in transactional services should gain good knowledge of HR policies and processes, enabling them to build on this, through further development. General Comments 27/ Senior Managers within Partnerships have indicated that they greatly value having HR on-site and there is concern around the physical location of the teams as this may be lost. 28/ The paper contains many comments about OD however this does not form part of the review. How will this be taken forward? 29/ How will integration impact on the new structure? Will a further re- organisation be required?

Response

It is noted that location of staff and their accessibility is an issue in a large organisation with a devolved organisational structure. It will be the intention to locate staff to best meet service needs, recognising the constraints on accommodation, and the opportunities for agile working. The further alignment of the OD/HR functions requires to be considered. The proposals in the review, are based on the body corporate model of Health and Social Care Partnerships and therefore the arrangements proposed reflect integration, and will be part of the revised organisational arrangements which are necessary as a result of integration. 4. Glasgow City CHCP South Sector The comments and questions below reflect the discussion of the South Sector SMT in relation to the paper Review of HR Function and the proposed structure change to the HR function. These comments are submitted as part of the consultation process. Comment on Future Service provision: 1. The paper suggest a more centralised function with an even greater transfer of HR responsibilities to managers. This may be ok but the balance is extremely important. 2. The paper could set out better the key principles and strategic aims. 3. There will be a significant impact on management time if further HR responsibilities are passed onto managers. This may require additional administration resource 4. It is unclear what support local managers will receive. This model does not seem to meet the requirements 5. The Francis report focuses in on quality. Good knowledge of clinical environments of business and staff who deliver the care is required.

Therefore in many respects HR needs to be closely aligned to senior teams and services 6. There is value in the close contacts and relationships with local HR teams. We do not want to lose this 7. It is unclear to how much responsibility is moving to managers 8. It is recognised that some HR issues can be easily resolved with any individual in HR however, there are other issues that require background information and it would be frustrating to have to repeat this with different contacts each time there is a development or further advice required. 9. It is important that the service managers and HR are closely aligned 10. From staff side point of view, there is concern that we will loose close links and working relationships with HR. 11. There is a strong relationship with HR and we value and trust their advice. We do not wish to loose this 12. Many HR issues are softer issues that require informal discussion and advise at short notice. Having established relationships is required for this 13. I would agree that there is a need to have new approaches to staff and a need for more consistency 14. Further explanation is required regarding the Service Delivery Board 15. A full description of the HR Business partner role is required in order to understand what is included within this role and what is not 16. Partnerships could loose out in terms of resource if this is shared with acute. The staffing issues within partnerships are within a specific context and this may not be understood by others 17. Will there be closer links between HR and recruitment? 18. What is the added value of these changes? 19. What we currently have works and if this is a not a cost cutting exercise, what is the purpose? Integration will have an impact in the near future More general comments on the paper and process 1/ The level of engagement has been low. Albeit the consultation asks for comment so it appears that key stakeholders have been engaged. 2/ It is not a well written paper. 3/ There is little detail so it is difficult to provide good quality feedback in a short time scale.

Response

The points raised by the South Sector of Glasgow City CHP are noted. It is likely that many of these can be addressed. Specifically there will be more detail regarding the Service Delivery Board, and a job description for the HR Business Partner role is being prepared. It is noted that there is a concern over the loss of resources. A key task for the Service Delivery Board will be to ensure that the available resources are deployed as effectively as possible. On the general comments, all HR staff and line managers were engaged in the process through surveys. Further engagement will be necessary to ensure successful implementation. It is not accepted that ‘it is not a well written paper’. The Steering Group has accepted the report as fulfilling the brief, and the report provides a way forward, to reflect the changing nature of the organisation. 5. Mental Health Services and Renfrewshire CHP HR Teams

Workforce Change

1) Can we be assured the Redesign process will follow the Workforce Change Policy where appropriate including redeployment, protection etc? 2) What will be the process for individuals to identify posts in the new structure i.e. will choice be ring fenced by banding? 3) Will posts be filled by ‘slot in’ where skills match and possible ring fenced competitive interview? 4) Will there be one-to-one interviews?

Response

The structural changes required as a result of the review, will be managed within the context of the Board’s Workforce Change Policy. The process to support implementation will be put in place through agreement with the Trade Unions.

Skills Audit

5) Who will be conducting the skills audit? 6) What will the skills audit criteria be based on? i.e. current posts, bands, skills and knowledge or on skills that will be required for new posts? 7) Will there be a development programme where there are skills gaps?

Response

The proposal for the Skills Audit is being finalised and will be taken forward in the near future. Where gaps are identified then development will be necessary.

Implementation/Timescales

8) Implementation is scheduled for April 2015. Is there a breakdown of the timeline from April 2014-April 2015 9) When will job descriptions be available? 10) Where/When will jobs be evaluated? i.e. through Glasgow Job Evaluation System

Response

Implementation will be supported by a Project Plan with associated timescales. Jobs will be matched/evaluated.

Single Approach

11) Is there one overall approach being adopted to completing the redesign process? i.e. Acute/ Partnerships 12) Will the partnership posts be determined by HSCP Structure + Corporate body? 13) What guarantee is there that Partnership HR will remain NHS employees?

Response

Yes, one approach will be taken, however, the development of each Health and Social Care Partnerships is at a different stage. It is intended that the HR support to HSCP’s will be established in the context of the proposals with the HR Review. Each HSCP will have a Business Partner; this will either be an NHS only post or an integrated post, as in the case of West Dunbartonshire. Whether those in the integrated posts are employees of the NHS, will depend on the way in which the posts are filled, and the background of the individual.

West Dunbartonshire – Business Partner Role

14) Will West Dunbartonshire be allowed to implement their HR posts prior to and out with the process? 15) Will other councils be allowed to develop their HR structure out with this process? 16) If so, Can guarantees be given that no current HR staff will be disadvantaged? 17) The Business Partner Role within West Dunbartonshire is banded as 8C. Will all business partners be banded at this level? 18) Why was the Business Partner Role within West Dunbartonshire evaluated out with Glasgow?

Response

See response above. All existing HR staff employed by the Board will be subject to the Board’s Workforce Change Policy. The Business Partner roles will be subject to matching/evaluation. The West Dunbartonshire Business Partner role was evaluated outwith NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to provide an independent view, given that it was an HR post, and many HR staff are involved in matching panels. The mainstreaming of job matching/evaluation will address this going forward.

Location

19) Will HR admin support be centrally based? If so, will they be co-located with transactional and ER teams? 20) Will the Employee Relations team be centralised or located in different sites? 21) Will ER teams provide support for all areas or will it be function/ geographically based?

Response

The location of functions and staff requires to be worked through.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clarity is sought regarding who produced the paper and whether or not it was agreed through Partnership. 3.5 in the summary paper refers to there needing to be a shift in accountability for people management to line managers from HR. Line Managers already have this accountability within partnerships.

5c within ‘Next Steps’ in the summary paper refers to undertaking a skills audit to assess the existing capability of the HR staff to inform future deployment of resources. Presumably this will be after the structure has been confirmed, roles clarified and job descriptions for new roles produced to enable skills to be audited against specified future requirements.

There is concern regarding what will be involved in the skills audit – what format will it take, how will it be conducted, who will undertake it?

There is also a question mark regarding why it hasn’t been suggested that information already in the system through KSF/PDP be utilized.

5g is suggesting, as one of several short term steps, to realign budgets to support the new structure reflecting the split of resources between central and support roles for Business Partners. There is no suggestion of the proportions for this split for future resources from the consultants report i.e. 40% strategic/60% operational. How will this be determined? What evidence is there to support what the split of resources should be?

It is also being suggested that this realignment of budgets happen at a point when it’s not clear what even the top line roles are in terms of banding, nor what the suggested ‘level’ in the structure is for the new ‘specialisms’ i.e. at what level will the ‘Succession Planning’ and ‘Talent Management’ sections be headed up?

Job titles need to be added to the structure to distinguish roles and give an indication of ‘level’ in the hierarchy which roles will be Associate Director, Heads of, etc.

6) The timetable refers to the ‘next steps’ list being completed by October 2014.

The next steps list includes at 5h) reference to agreeing the final deployment of HR resources and appoint to roles in structure. This seems to be an optimistic timetable and also seems to at odds with 6) where it then refers to the structure being put in place no later than April 2015?

Final Report to Steering Group - Executive Summary

Page 2 1.1 Executive Summary - ‘There is a widely held sense, which we share, that the HR function will need to be much more able to handle change in its own circumstances and much more capable of supporting organisational change’.

• The existing environment we work in, one of constant change, has not been recognised. In the past 30 years or so the organisation has been far from stable. We have undergone mergers and at least 4 major reorganisations, closing approximately 2000 beds and at least 30 sites. The organisation has redesigned our current and future services • HR has clearly supported the organisation through major change to date, however, the comments in the report imply that there are weaknesses in the current capability of HR to support organisational change going forward but doesn’t evidence this conclusion or clarify in what way there is lack of capability

Page 2

‘Taking account of the consensus that emerged from our engagement of stakeholders, our opinion is that the future HR function should continue to give a high priority to Employee Relations but more proactively in working to avoid problems rather then being obliged to deal with problems.’ • Shift from a reactive approach to a proactive approach – How will this be feasible as HR can only be proactive to a certain extent, but cannot prepare for or predict every eventuality. Sufficient resourcing levels would allow for a more proactive approach

Page 3

‘It is possible also that this approach will also result in duplication of effort across the whole organisation. We take the view that it would be appropriate to establish a range of highly skilled generalists on the ground to make this model work’ • This could be taken as implying that NHS GGC does not currently have a range of highly skilled generalists within the HR function.

Page 3

“We take the view that it would be appropriate to establish: …. Structures in place that encourage interdependencies and cross team learning • It isn’t apparent how the proposed structure intends to achieve this? (the reporting relationship lines don’t seem to be supportive of that objective). Section 3.5 The Functions of HR (Page 11) ‘The following were identified as key activities: • Creation and maintenance of People and HR Policies. * Policies and procedures are open to interpretation; different HR people interpret different policies in different ways in different organisational settings’ • Policies & Procedures could be reviewed to try and minimise the opportunities for different interpretations but would not completely avoid differences in opinion and interpretations of policies all together

Section 3.5 The Functions of HR (Page 11)

‘Some line managers take the view that HR is accountable for managing such problems. A significant part of HR is comfortable with this reliance on them. This

does prompt the question however “is this the most effective role for HR?” Many private sector organisations have moved away from HR’s direct involvement in case management, except for the most serious matters. GGC stakeholders broadly agree that HR should step back from managing difficult issues for line managers, but there is a need for clarity about line manager accountabilities for people management and how they will be discharged. An important role for HR may then become equipping managers to better manage and thereby avoid issues.’ • The paper proposes perhaps an idealistic view of HR as only having involvement with ‘higher level’ or ‘complex’ cases, however the reality is that there will still have to be involvement to some extent throughout the relevant processes. Line manager actions would need to be monitored to ensure consistency of approach and identify deviances from the correct procedures. Failure to do this creates a significant risk for the organisation. • Proposed move towards line managers taking more HR responsibility will be dependent on their training and them having ready access to guidance, including FAQs. The concern is that without HR interaction then cases may progress to the point where they have to ‘go back to the drawing board’ when fundamental errors have been made at an early stage i.e. in a disciplinary case.

Section 3.6 Performance of HR – Functional Analysis NHS GGC Comparison – Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4

• The tables showing ratios of HR staff to overall numbers of staff show ‘on the face of it’ comparisons that could be taken to be implying that GGC is overstaffed. In addition, the ongoing theme within the case studies that one of the potential benefits of moving to this type of model would be the opportunity to significantly reduce headcounts (p21 4.2.3). However, there is reference within the report to financial savings being made however there is also reference to the restructure being ‘cost neutral’(section 7, page 47). There are mixed messages and it is unclear what the financial objective is. • Given that there is a stated proposed timescale for implementation to be achieved by April 2015 this should arguably be clearer within the report at this stage.

Section 3.9 – 2nd paragraph

“There is some sense of HR acting as a regulator / policeman around HR and People Management policies; telling managers what they are not allowed to do rather than advising them how to proceed or how to avoid problems at an earlier stage” • “There is some sense of ….. “ seems to be rather a weak basis for arriving at a sweeping conclusion that HR ‘just say no’ to Managers. There is disagreement that there is a general approach of telling managers ‘no, you can’t’. In practice HR work with managers to provide tailored solutions to complex problems and work with them to avoid problems escalating.

• The case studies didn't appear that relevant to NHS GG&C and were not sufficiently detailed enough to provide the reader with evidence that the HR

Section 4: Page 16-27

service within the five organisations listed had actually improved the quality of Service following their 'transformation' • There was also no detail within the case studies regarding whether the organisations described in the case studies were unionised or not and the report itself gave scant regard to how this might impact on the amount of time HR might devote to ER type work.

Section 5: 5.1.3 HR Guardian/Police – (Reactive – Internal Cost Focus)

‘Limited range of HR across the entire organisation carried out primarily by line managers who remain accountable for all aspects of people management. HR officers act mainly as “cops” policing the delivery of HR policies by the line managers’ • The proposal perceives the role of HR as ‘policing’ managers whereas the reality is that managers are supported and assisted in providing tailored solutions Section 5: 5.3 The current HR function in GGCNHS “It can also be seen that currently, while ultimately highly responsive to the varying needs of the organisation as it responds to patient demands and requirements, the outcomes are inconsistent and variable response to HR issues.” • It is difficult to establish consistency of approaches/ advice given when all cases are different and there may be subtle differences between the details of similar cases that legitimately require differing advice. Section 5: 5.3 “However, this (current) model inevitably does not focus enough of its resources in the strategic arena and therefore will only deliver relatively low operational value …… “ • there is no quantification of this – how has this been determined? What is the split between strategic and operational current and proposed?

• The Reports recommendation that the move to "an Intelligent HR model" should be transformational rather than evolutionary (page 49 8.2) which contradicts the experiences of other organisation. Peter Goodge, Business Partnering – A new Direction for HR (CIPD 2005). A wide ranging study of organisations that have successfully implemented the Ulrich model found that those that had successfully implemented the Ulrich model did so via a step by step process, focusing on developing the Business Partner role first before implementing the other components of the model.

Section 8: Transitional considerations – Page 47

Section 11: Appendix 3 – One to One Interviews

• There is concern that the membership of focus groups wasn’t representative - why were more operational HR Practitioners (Advisor/Assistant level) not interviewed or involved in focus groups in order to get their view? It may have been better to include more ‘front line’ managers i.e. senior charge nurses.

Proposed Model

• Concerns regarding what Talent Management and Succession Planning will consist of and how it will fit into the culture and structure • Future Structure - Will HR Admin & Support Services be centrally located and will they be located separately from General HR practitioners? This raises concerns if this is the case as there is real benefit for HR Assistants to be based in the same office as senior colleagues. Opportunities for learning, being involved in discussions, shadowing etc • Intelligent HR Model focuses on High Patient Focus – The understanding is that the culture is already one with a high patient focus. Misinterpretation of views and culture currently? • How does the proposed model improve the identified need for greater cross team working ? • The proposal is effectively a ‘top level’ structure with reference to an implementation plan to be developed. There is insufficient detail within this paper on which to base an implementation plan. • We are being asked to consider and presumably adopt the proposed model which is essentially only a skeleton with no detail on how the objectives will be met by this model. • Reference is made at 1.1.3 in the Executive Summary to having a strategic workforce planning function whose size and capablilities better match the needs of the organisation – however, there is no detail provided

Positive Views

• Agree that SLAs should be sacrosanct • Some elements of the proposed model encourages interdependencies (Focus of OD and L&E) Agree that these should be an integral part of HR • Agree that lack of HR Analytics/centralised systems/performance reporting is a deficiency that has to be addressed to enable a more proactive service

Questions

• Who produced the ‘Review of HR function’ paper and was it agreed through Partnership? • What is the Board’s definition of Strategic HR? • When will information be made available on the following: :Job titles, key responsibilities and bands of posts shown on the proposed model structure Job titles, key responsibilities and bands of post in the tiers below the ‘top level structure

Number of posts available in the structure • Is the achievement of financial savings one of the objectives of implementing the revised structure? If so, what saving is required? • Realignment of budgets/split of resources between central and support roles – how and when will this split be determined? • What is the proposed percentage split in resources between strategic and operational ? • Will HR Admin & Support Services be centrally located and will they be located separately from General HR practitioners? • How will the size of the strategic workforce planning function be determined? • Proposed new HR Model – How will this allow for current interactions and experiences to be shared? • Skills audit – how/when will the ‘required skills’ be established; when will the audit be expected to take place, who will conduct it and what will it consist of? Will KSF/PDP information be utilised? • Has it been taken into account that a centralised ER function may diminish good working relationships with managers? • What is involved in HR consulting services/ HR projects – Is this one person or a function? • Proposed move to a more strategic function – At what level? Is the expectation that all roles below a certain level will be a mix of strategic and operational? Who will monitor line managers in their application of HR policy to ensure that they are consistent in application/interpretation and ensure that they aren’t creating problems at the early stages in processes that will require an inefficient ‘back to the drawing board’ approach when i.e. the dismissal stage is reached. - There is a lack of detail in the paper and proposed structure around numbers and bands to be in each box, I am hoping this is because this has not been decided yet and would wish further consultation on the model once that detail has been populated. - Ian at his briefing mentioned the business partners would have a small team with them in the directorates/CHP's - this is not in the paper and I would be keen to see this detail also. - Line manager development has been on the agenda for a long time, how can HR support the need to move this forward more proatively and how do we change the culture of reliance on HR for the better? - There are a number of HR staff not represented by the unions. Can there be staff reps on the implementation group to ensure our voices are heard. Could

there also be a TU rep who understands the workings within partnerships, not just Acute reps please. - What will the skills audit look like - presumably it will be 360 in nature? - How will this fit with the integration agenda and what some CHCP's are already doing around HR in their areas - Looking for some more detail around implementation, how people will be matched, what happens if they don't want to go where the skills audit says they would be best placed, what if there are too many staff who would match into the one box - surely there will need to be some form of competitive process in these circumstances?

Response

The paper was the result of a procurement process which concluded with the Edinburgh Institute (Edinburgh Napier University/Institute of Employment Studies) being engaged to undertake the Review. The authors are identified in the report. The Trade Unions were stakeholders who were consulted as part of the review. It is recognised that line managers already have accountability for people management, it is intended to develop this, so that HR can be repositioned to challenge and support people management practices, rather than an occasion becoming accountable. The Skills Audit process is covered in earlier responses. The future allocation of resources will be determined to ensure that available resources are deployed to best effect. Grading, bandings and job titles of posts will be determined. The process of implementation will be supported by a project plan with defined timescales. The specific points on each section of the report are noted, however in response to the specific questions:- The report was produced by the Edinburgh Institute and it was approved by a Steering Group, led by the Board Chairman, Chief Executive, Lead Director, Acute, Director, Renfrewshire CHP, representing Partnerships, the Director of Human Resources and the Employee Director. Trade Unions were consulted as stakeholders. The Board has accepted the ‘Intelligent HR’ model as the basis for going forward. Structures, job titles, job descriptions, and grades/bands will be produced as part of the Project. Financial savings are not a requirement of implementation, however, it is intended that opportunities for savings should be sought during implementation. The allocation of resources will be the responsibility of the Service Delivery Board, which will similarly determine issues such as the resources allocated to a specific function.

6. Acute Services 1.

Introduction

1.1 The Acute Services Division would firstly like to indicate their support for the review of Human Resource services and have over the last 18 months moved to a clustering of Directorate resource to improve efficiency and quality. The Division welcomes the opportunity to comment on the review by the Edinburgh Institute.

2.

Existing arrangements

2.1 The Acute Services Division believe that the external review has not taken account the complexity and challenges within the Acute Services Division and whilst we welcome the proposal that the HR Business Partners are retained in Acute, it is unclear within the review paper how the HR Business Partners will link in terms of accountability to the role of the Director of Human Resources.

2.2 The Acute Services Division has benefitted by having the Associate Director

of Human Resources role, as this has enable staff governance and partnership working, to be of a high standard within the Division through a coordinated professional role for the HR teams that links in strongly to local Directorate Management Teams. We therefore seek to understand the role of the Business Partners inline with that of the current service Director structure and that of the Director of Human Resources.

2.3 The Division has delivered a series of HR performance indicators i.e. KSF

and managing absence often leading amongst other service units. The Division therefore seek assurances that our standard of performance will be maintained at a high level through the proposed model.

2.4 There is particular concern regarding the centralisation of the Employee

Relations function, Learning and Development and Workforce Planning functions. The Division recognises the benefits of economies of scale, the opportunities for consistency and a centralised model. The current Learning and Development structure delivers directly the service needs of our Directorates and operates as a Business Partner and not a traditional training delivery model. This has enabled us to develop our Statutory/Mandatory programme, support TrakCare, develop our ABV programme and support service redesign. Workforce planning is critical for our service redesign programme and whilst resource is very limited the Division wants to understand how we will benefit from a centralised function in comparison to the responsive model currently available. We also welcome more exploration of the link between Workforce Planning and Workforce Analytics as having a resource who has an understanding of the Division is of great benefit.

Response The aim of the Review is to enhance the effectiveness of the HR function, and therefore it will be important to ensure that the existing provision is not diminished by the implementation of the Review. The deployment of HR Business Partners will be influenced by the wider review of the Board’s organisational arrangements.

3.

Employee Relations

3.1 The Employee Relations function requires further development; the Division accepts that having key HR professionals with a greater depth of employee relations experience may in the longer term prevent some of the expensive advice from the Central Legal Office. The paper is silent as to how the Employee Relations team will interact with the Business Partners. The volume of activity in some of our Directorates is challenging, we seek to understand how responsive the new team will be, as our current resource of HR Managers, Advisors and Assistants support local service managers and supervisors on a day to day basis with Employee Relations advice.

3.2 We recognise there is always a challenge around the consistency of advice

and support, what guarantee will we have that a centralised team will understand the complexity of the cases and the potential impact on patient care.

3.3 The Division also wish to understand where the professional accountability

will sit if the advice given by the Employee Relations team is later proven to be incorrect. Will the Business Partner be accountable, the Employee Relations team or the Director of HR? Having clear protocols and pathways will be critical to the success of these centralised functions.

Response The relationship between the HR Business Partners and central specialist functions will be critical to the success of the operation of the new model. As the response highlights, the protocols and pathways will be critical to the success of these centralised functions. 4.

Occupational Health

4.1 The Division does not support Occupational Health’s potential placing in the proposed option, and believe that if the Board remains committed to employee health and wellbeing, that the Occupational Health Service and Health and Safety Service should be subject to a review to integrate their functions to meet the needs of our Employee Health and Wellbeing and Health Improvement objectives.

Response It is noted that there is a view that the Occupational Health and the Health and Safety should be considered to be integrated. This is something which will be considered going forward. 5.

Structure

5.1 The Division are thoughtful as to why the HR review structure should be concluded by Autumn 2014 if it is still unclear as to what the wider organisational structure will be. Our preference is that the organisational structure including details regarding Directorates and functions is defined in the first instance and that the HR structure is then aligned to the Divisional structure. We wish to understand what steps will be taken to move the service into a more proactive service than reactive given the Acute

environment is by nature reactive due to the need to resolve matters promptly to avoid disruption to clinical services.

5.2 We understand the need to progress the review and we believe that there are

short, medium and long term time frames that should be taken into account. Within the short term the Division is concerned that any disruption to the HR service will have an impact on the migration of staff to the New South Glasgow Hospitals, whilst there is no perfect timing of any review, our preference is to retain the current model until the summer of 2015. The local HR teams have a wealth of knowledge on the current organisational structure, staff issues including culture, environment and services and this knowledge could be lost if the restructuring takes place prior to our redesign.

5.3 In the medium term, there will be the settling down of our new services which

will bring some of the change challenges into the service however we are realistic that new model could be in place following the transfer of staff to the new hospitals in the summer of 2015. We see this as the opportunity to benefit from the change in Skillmix within HR as our service needs will differ from 2014/15.

5.4 Longer term we recognise the impact of eESS and the national HR Shared

Services programme may further impact on the model.

Response

The points raised about timing are well made. It is not the intention to implement change prior to the wider organisational arrangements are known. In relation to the management structure in the Acute Division, proposals are to be brought forward by the Chief Executive. It is intended in HR that form will follow function, and therefore the implementation of the changes in the HR function will need to be in line with other changes. The Project Plan developed to support implementation will need to include timescales which reflect wider changes. The proposals in the HR Review are designed to take account of e-ESS, and the national shared services project. 6.

HR Transactional

6.1 We seek clarity as to how the HR transactional service can work in the absence of the eESS system given that it is recognised that it is unlikely to be functioning in a live environment prior to spring of 2015. Any case study or models observed regarding the full Business Partner model with links to a transactional service requires an effective HR / customer service system. As the system has not been tested end to end either locally or nationally there appears to be no customer front end therefore how will the HR transactional service link to Employee Relations and the Business Partner to ensure we can be paperlight and most importantly customer focussed, with accurate data to support our performance and planning frameworks.

Response

The need for e-ESS to support HR Transactional services is well made, and therefore changes in this areas will need to reflect the plan for the implementation of e-ESS.

7.

Skills Audit

7.1.1 The Division have undertaken a HR development programme over 2 years for the HR teams which included looking at cultural change, personal effectiveness and where HR adds value into the organisational units. We welcome a skills audit but seek to understand more clearly what will this skills audit entail, when will it be undertaken and what will be the timeframe to deliver against the skills audit. Will the skills audit then be used as part of the selection criteria for selecting people into key posts? Second to that is the skill set of our managers, the Division fully supports the fact that our managers are responsible for their own people issues. However given the complexity of employment law whilst we have an expectation that they will deal with operational people issues including the management of absence and front line management of performance there are different categories within the framework,

1) New Managers who require very specific guidance and support to ensure that they are trained on the Board’s policies and procedures.

2) Managers who may have particularly challenging teams, how will they be supported on the day to day basis which avoids them being distracted from delivering key patient services.

3) Managers whose skill set may not support change.

The Division would like to understand what additional support will be provided to managers to ensure that they can work consistency in this proposed model but also there will be no HR tasks moving to the manager’s role given we are continuing to reduce our management capacity. Following circulation of the review papers to general managers and supervisors it is fair to say there is potential resistance to proposals which shift the balance of support from HR to the line managers. As the HR teams provide added support by supporting with complex correspondence, the Division would like more information as to how we would mitigate against any risk of inappropriate correspondence being issued to employees which could lead to a liability for the Board.

Response

The skills audit proposal is being further developed and will be shared. It is the intention that the Skills Audit will be used as part of the process to align to posts. The analysis of the support required to line managers is very useful and provides a good approach to structuring development. 8.

The role of the Business Partner

8.1 Having read the HR review paper in detail and having adopted our cluster model the Division still prefer the term Head of Human Resources rather than Business Partner, the current Heads of Human Resources work at a level with the senior management teams supported by HR Managers and Advisors. Within our cluster model we always planned that the HR Assistants may form part of a transactional environment in due course, this was predicated on eESS being live.

Response

The job title ‘Head of HR’ is one that should be retained. The balance of direct and central support requires to be further explored. The cluster model in the Acute Division provides a good model on which to build. The opportunity to retain an Acute lead also requires to be explored and this needs to reflect the organisational arrangements going forward. A job description for the HR Business Partner role has been developed for further discussion. 8.2 Our expectation is that the HR Business Partners / Heads of HR will retain

their HR Managers and HR Advisors to ensure that not only the Directorate senior team are supported but that the General Manager level is supported. On this basis we seek clarity as to how staff will be identified for the HR central service teams as our understanding is there is currently no resource within Employee Relations, Succession Planning or Talent Management. How will the Partnerships HR teams contribute to the resource, if they are currently unresolved through the review of Health and Social Care? Will the Business Partners report directly to the Director of Human Resources for professional matters or is there an opportunity still to retain an Acute lead.

8.3 If the Business Partners are commissioners of activity how will case

management be supported as this currently requires a commitment from Human Resources, Line Managers and Staffside. The Business Partner model appears to be the only model considered by the Edinburgh Institute. Is the Board content that this model is fit for purpose there appears to be little evidence of improvements in quality in these organisations.

9.

Process and Way Forward

9.1 The Division would like to see the implementation plan for the change. How will existing individuals and skills be aligned to the new organisational model? In terms of leadership the Heads of Human Resources within Acute Services have a vast range of skills and competencies, how will you ensure fairness in the selection process to maximise opportunities to develop their skills further, i.e. a Head of Human Resources leading the corporate functions.

Response

An implementation plan will be essential and project management arrangements require to be put in place. 10.

Cultural Shift

10.1 The current Human Resources model was based on operational HR support to the Acute Services Division and Partnerships with the customer i.e. Divisions supported by central functions. How will the Board ensure that the central functions will be customer focussed and also acquire a greater understanding of the customer needs given they will be further from the customer base.

Response

The central functions will be performance managed through the Service Delivery Board, which needs to be responsive to customer needs.

11.

Recommendation

11.1 Given the range of comments from the Division it is proposed that the Director of Human Resources be invited to a meeting with the Acute Directors to expand on some of the aforementioned points.

7. Area Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee ANMAC members are concerned that this change will significantly add to the work load of SCN/M and we do not feel that this has been fully articulated in the current workforce planning calculations. Meetings, letters, notes of meetings etc are all central to a consistent HR policy(s) if there is no support for the production of these documents, this will in turn mean less time for direct patient care and supervision of clinical staff. As above ANMAC members note that no evaluation of the increased workload for local manages is included in the consultation document. We ask that this is evaluated and that if necessary a plan is put in place to support local teams with, for example, increased administration staff. We would request that this is done before any change in function is agreed. ANMAC members are concerned that local interpretation without sufficient expert advice will lead to increased numbers of potential grievances. ANMAC have asked what additional training will be offered to local managers to facilitate this change.

Response

It is acknowledged that there may be an impact on nurse managers, and senior charge nurses. However, it is now widely recognised through various inquiries, reports etc, that managers and supervisors with strong people management skills, are much better leaders, and their teams perform more effectively. It is therefore the intention that managers and supervisors are supported to carry out this function effectively. Strong HR support will be maintained and indeed it is the aim of the HR Review that this support is enhanced; and the HR function itself becomes more effective. 8. UNISON In general terms UNISON welcomes the commitment by NHSGGC to review the HR function and structure across the Board area. As you know UNISON represents members across the A4C pay grades as well as some senior managers. Our depth of membership includes HR professionals; this puts UNISON in a unique position in respect of our relationship with HR as a delivery arm of the organisation, a profession within which we have a membership interest and at times an ‘opponent’. As a result UNISON has for many years offered constructive criticism on the role and functions of HR across the Board area, on issues of identity; standard of advice; consistency of policy application and more. The union welcomes the commitment to review the function and structure, but we share our members disappointment that the final document seems to fall short of a

grand vision and raises more questions than it resolves. These may be resolved by the production of a structure and the work associated with matching and migration. Whilst UNISON might support in principle a move away from the current model of people management, which seems to be HR intensive and is peppered with inconsistency and conflict (in some areas) – we are concerned that the papers proposal to move towards intelligent HR ignores the fact that the biggest single resource across NHSGGC is people and as such people management places a significant demand on management resources. Any such move to withdraw HR from the ‘front line’ will undoubtedly require a massive investment in ‘people managers’ – we do not agree that web based or virtual solutions are the answer. UNISON also believes that this approach if followed is likely to lead to an increase in conflict and potential litigation – it is therefore essential that there is a strong ethos to prompt, fair and efficient conflict resolution in any new structure. Local people managers need up skilled in a number of areas including what might be classed as ‘soft skills or ‘people skills’ if we are to avoid major industrial relations problems of serious litigation. UNISON accepts that the paper might have had to be limited in its scope in so far as the actual structure and future vision – the Chief Executive should show his hand now, in terms of future management structures to assist the discussion. If a site based management structure is preferred, then that work should begin now and the HR structure should mirror that principle. Similarly the appointment of a new Dir of HR should be a priority, in order that the incoming incumbent can stamp her/his mark on the structure. It is our view that in the Dir of HR MUST play a pivotal role around in the corporate strategy but also in the delivery of HR function and problem solving. UNISON does welcome the overall suggestion that OD should be brought back into the HR Community and that emphasis should continue to be placed on workforce planning and staff engagement. UNISON would propose the following : - That the Chief Executive make known his views about the future management structure of NHSGGC and that there is an alignment of HR to that structure, - That there is specific discussion on whether the new health and social care partnerships need specific HR advice and how this is provided on an across the board basis, - That NHSGGC develop a programme of accredited core training for all people managers with trade unions – which will have specific and measurable investment.

Response

The comments from UNISON are noted and it is the intention to work with UNISON, given the relationship with the HR function, in terms of the delivery of a more effective model, and recognising that it represents staff who will be directly affected.

This should be able to deal with the concerns raised through implementation. In relation to the specific proposals:- • It is intended that the future management structure of NHSGGC will be known in the near future and that there is alignment of HR to that structure. • Those involved in leading the development of Health and Social Care Partnerships in discussions, have indicated their desire for dedicated HR resource. This is recognised in the report of the HR Review, which is based on the body corporate model, and proposes HR Business Partners in the new Partnerships supported by organisation wide resources. This would be managed through the Service Delivery Board. This would meet the aspirations of the Partnerships while recognising the staff governance responsibilities of the NHS Boards as the employer. • Proposals for line manager training will be discussed with the trade unions, together with the level of investment. 9. Workforce Planning & Development Team The Workforce Planning and Development Management team met to discuss the content of the HR Review. This paper outlines the views and thoughts of both, the WP&D management team and local teams, on the broad proposals continued in the review. Part 1 of this paper gives feedback on the executive summary and outlines the change that is required to make this happen. We have also commented on where further explanation and analysis of an issue would be helpful. Part 2 of this paper proposes the development of a Strategic Workforce Planning & Development function the need for which is highlighted in the final HR Review.

Part 1

Executive Summary Feedback We strongly agree that the following issues are critical to the delivery of effective HR services in NHSGG&C. HR needs to change from a reactive to a proactive and more strategic service which will help to drive the organisation forward (transformational change is required)

Consistency of HR application and practice across NHSGGC (whatever the final structure) and measurement of quality is essential and should be a key outcome of the review Establishing a new culture of partnership (which breaks down previous historical organisational boundaries) and collaborative working is essential if the HR team is to give added value to NHSGGC We will achieve this through the following: Developing the culture within HR - we need to move mindsets towards new way of working, interdependencies/ team learning / collaborative partnership being the key themes.

We need dynamic HR leaders and a vision which moves away from existing boundaries (acute, board, partnerships). The importance of a strong Corporate HR leadership in achieving this new HR service cannot be understated. Development of specialist centralised HR services lead by the Corporate HRD and providing expert advice and services to the HR Business Partners and the service will help achieve this vision. We need to develop and integrate HR “Business Intelligence and Analytics as an integral function and driver of workforce planning and change. We need to develop a new corporate strategic workforce planning model (see Part 2) which will better connect strategic workforce planning with operational service realities and brings the current separate elements of workforce planning into a joined up service. We would like to explore further: A people management programme is key to enacting this new HR model. This would have a practical focus dealing with hard issues of HR management and would equip critical management levels with the confidence, skills & knowledge to manage their human resources. Alignment between OD and HR and L&E with the work of OD and L&E to be unpacked to explore where and when OD initiatives and programmes can support HR processes (e.g. workforce change/ redesign of services). It would be useful to have a joint session with HR & OD to explore some of the duplication and synergies and identify how we could work together better. The role of the Business partners in engaging and working with “Central Functions” and how this key relationship will be managed. The proposed skills audit. The group felt that the audit needed to be kept high level to identify existing competencies through a self assessment process combined with managerial view. The Skills Audit outcomes may lead to a second round of HR development programmes for internal staff. Existing competencies could also be established through KSF. The audit would need to be carried out in a non threatening way which will enable HR practitioners to engage honestly and positively with the process in a time of instability and change.

Part 2

Proposed Model for Workforce Planning and Development The HR Review highlights the complexity involved in workforce planning within NHSGG&C. In particular the review recognises and identifies concerns over the ability of the existing workforce planning function to: “deliver the right capabilities into the new organisation” and a “lack of integration between short term resourcing decisions and longer term workforce planning”. At present the Workforce planning team is a small stand alone resource and as such is limited in its ability to exert influence over issues (such as short term resourcing solutions) which are currently the preserve of, and managed by, different departments within the existing HR departmental structure.

Having considered the HR Review Report and comments in Part 1, we propose that a future model of service is developed which reflects the principle outlined in the Six Step Methodology for Integrated Workforce Planning. It is suggested that combining the existing departments and teams for Workforce Planning, Workforce Information, Recruitment & Bank Services along with Learning & Education will allow the development of a service capable of developing and implementing cohesive and coordinated strategies which will address the deficits identified within the HR review in a way that the existing structures cannot. This will enable GGC to better manage key areas of risk such as vacancies and skills shortages. Although at an early stage, our initial thoughts are for the development of a single service comprising of 4 main Workstreams Workforce Planning & DemandWorkforce Data, Analytics and Quality Workforce Supply (Recruitment and Bank Services)Workforce Development, Learning and Education. We see each of these 4 Workstreams with further responsibilities to enhance service provision. These services may require additional resource (either in the form of WTE or staff development) which is likely to be clarified/quantified following the outcome of any future skills audit. The main areas of responsibility under each heading are listed as follows.

The overall aim of the combined function is to support the creation of the ‘compelling HR vision’ which will harness the energies and skills of the current teams and focus the collective effort on key organisational priorities.

With reference to the remaining corporate central services as set out in the HR structure issued with the HR Review consultation paper there would also be an opportunity to consider the alignment of Staff Governance and Policy Development, Employee Relations and HR Administrative Services into a central corporate service.

Workstreams 1.

Workforce Planning & Demand

Supporting local service managers and professional leads in the development of local workforce planning activities

Identifying strategic workforce risks and developing scenario plans and options to mitigate identified risk Identification of Redeployment & Retraining requirements Liaison with stakeholders to develop change management actions Collate above information on behalf of the board and produce annual local workforce plans

2.

Workforce Data, Analytics and Quality

Development and maintenance of high quality, timeous workforce information using available information management systems Regular audit of Workforce Data and remedial actions to address identified issues Development of Workforce Dashboards/Standard Suite of Reports for service managers under a series of key areas to be agreed Workforce Analytics including identification of trends/hotspots and areas of risk Cross reference of Workforce and Patient Activity data to inform workforce requirements Better HR Quality Performance data

3.

Workforce Supply

Vacancy Recruitment Proactive management of workforce risks in with service including vacancy monitoring and analysis, skill and role shortages, service issues such as winter pressures Short Term (Bank) Staffing Solutions/ Deployment Short Term Staffing Monitoring and Analysis Agency Staffing Usage Monitoring & Analysis Long Term analysis of recruitment and workforce trends

4.

Workforce Development, Learning & Education

Increase focus and resource on people and management development programmes to support transformation to intelligent HR model with upskilled managers at the heart of operational HR delivery Develop and refocus central L&E functions (KSF, e-ESS, LearnPro, SVQ and Qualification teams) to support the continuous learning and development of current and future staff Work with services and key internal and external Education Stakeholders to develop education provision for future and new service roles – with explicit links to service workforce plans and future skill needs

Clear alignment with OD to develop and deliver Workforce Change programmes and ensure talent management and succession planning infrastructure in place Develop an NHSGGC Learning and Development strategy in line with 20/20 vision which will create a strategic framework for all providers of L&E within NHSGGC and facilitates an L&E programme that ensures delivery of clinical strategy and quality outcomes and workforce planning and change.

Response

This is a welcome contribution to the implementation of the proposals set out in the HR Review for a Strategic Workforce Planning and Development function. It would therefore be proposed that this be further developed for further discussion, particularly at the Programme Board and if adopted could be part of the project plan to achieve early implementation. 10. SVQ Team The Qualifications Team support the direction and broad themes of the HR Review Paper. The team will continue to support and strengthen their role within service development/ redesign and respond flexibly to requests from service managers for support in the design of qualifications and in the assessment of required competencies. The team have developed strong cross organisation working engaging with managers and staff in acute, corporate and partnerships areas. The team also engage with other Boards to ensure consistency of practice in health service assessment and verification and also to reduce duplication of processes across the wider service in NHS Scotland. The quality of the outputs from the team continue to be validated by awarding bodies such as SQA. With these areas of expertise the team can continue to contribute to a centralised model which supports the development of the workforce.

Response

The contribution of the SVQ team is recognised, and this is an area to be consolidated. 11. Jennifer Hardy, Glasgow City CHP - There is a lack of detail in the paper and proposed structure around numbers

and bands to be in each box, I am hoping this is because this has not been decided yet and would wish further consultation on the model once that detail has been populated.

- Ian at his briefing mentioned the business partners would have a small team

with them in the directorates/CHP's - this is not in the paper and I would be keen to see this detail also.

- Line manager development has been on the agenda for a long time, how can

HR support the need to move this forward more proactively and how do we change the culture of reliance on HR for the better?

- There are a number of HR staff not represented by the unions. Can there be

staff reps on the implementation group to ensure our voices are heard. Could

there also be a TU rep who understands the workings within partnerships, not just Acute reps please.

- What will the skills audit look like - presumably it will be 360 in nature? - How will this fit with the integration agenda and what some CHCP's are

already doing around HR in their areas - Looking for some more detail around implementation, how people will be

matched, what happens if they don't want to go where the skills audit says they would be best placed, what if there are too many staff who would match into the one box - surely there will need to be some form of competitive process in these circumstances?

Response

It is recognised that the implementation plan requires to be developed. The way in which HR staff are engaged going forward needs to be maintained and communication will be key. This will be a strand of the implementation plan.

12. UNITE Unite welcome the opportunity offered by the Board to comment on the proposal document in relation to the future of Human Resources. This response has been produced by Unite following consultation with our members serving as HR practitioners. We welcome consideration is being given to a strategic input from HR with respect to workforce planning across GG&C. However we note that some aspects of the paper circulated within HR by management has been considered as inflammatory to existing staff with respect to comments on their current support to workforce change within the Board. This may be put down to poor communication with this cohort of staff, but it nevertheless is concerning to Unite. The document presents significant potential for staff deskilling in general terms particularly if assigned to a niche area or if the service moves to an office, call centre or telesupport system rather than face to face interactions with staff across GG&C. The proposals jeopardise long term professional relationships with staff with the potential for historic knowledge and networks being lost. Members have also highlighted concern around potential redeployment into other areas of the service e.g. HR assistants ending up in lower banded A&C roles. We feel the document lacks detail in many areas and clarity is required with respect to structure, roles, proposed bandings, whole time equivalents and potential locations in order to provide a full response. The document raises a number of questions including: · What is intelligent HR? There is a decided lack of detail on this. · How can we be certain of the short, medium and long term ability of local management to deliver a consistent, best practice and equality proofed local HR practice?

· Will the suggested skills audit be carried out on a partnership basis and what will be the format of the proposed skills assessment?

· Where will the service be located?

If and when the Board moves to implementation then we will need significant clarity and robust engagement with Trade Unions representing staff as well as the HR team as a whole.

Response

It is unfortunate if aspects of the report were considered as inflammatory to existing staff. The report’s conclusions were based on stakeholder engagement and the recommendations are intended to enhance the existing function. It is important that the concerns you raise around deskilling and destabilising relationships do not happen in practice, and it is the intention that these negative impacts do not materialise. In relation to the specific question • the ‘Intelligent HR’ function is detailed in the report, but the new structure is based on strong HR Business Partners with strong central support which can be shared across the organisation to enhance the contribution of HR to the organisation strategy. • the aim is to enhance the people management skills of line managers through a development process which will be evaluated. • the Skills Audit will be subject to further discussion. • it is likely that HR support will continue to be provided from a variety of locations throughout the Board dependent on changes to and availability of accommodation. It is the intention to involve trade union representatives in the development of a project plan and is implementation.