Reform of Australian Government Administration
What needs to change in the public service: tell us what you think (27-29 October)
We are interested in your thoughts on how to make the public service more efficient and effective.
The discussion paper Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the best public service in the world suggested a number of possible reform ideas including:
- a more structured approach to, and greater investment in, learning and development
- improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies
- reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies
- increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
- facilitating more collaborative and strategic policy advice by some form of cross-portfolio structures, for example, strategic policy hubs
- more widespread use of citizen satisfaction surveys
- a more co-ordinated approach to recruitment at certain entry points eg. Graduates
- improving current recruitment and selection processes.
Please don’t feed constrained to limiting your ideas to the above list – we want to know your top three ideas for things that need to change in the public service so it can operate better.
Question for discussion
What three things do you think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century?
Remember that we are a Public Service. Our role is to determine the best way to effect this service. That does not mean that we only serve the elected representatives of the day in implementing policy/legislation but also to provide a satisfactory service to our employers, the taxpayers. I am gobsmacked by incidences of cruelty (guaranteed to disengage public support) where instead of addressing a problem cross-agency, we sentence a member of the public to a bureaucratic runaround couched in agency lingo.
Take a step back. If any system has become that complicated and legalistic that your average taxpayer can't understand or respond without employing an army of accountants or solicitors, then we have a problem. Time for a major overhall and not just in individual agencies as problems raise their ugly heads.
More flexible work practices that are more than lip-service and some respect for working mothers. I don't know how women with children survive without extensive family support. This is fast fading with many grandparents increasingly working themselves past the child-rearing years of their children and unable to assist.
Get rid of call centres. They dehumanise by standardising their clients and their workers. Where's the respect in micromanagement?
We need to think outside of the circle, and I make these suggestions.
1. Introduce sweeping nationwide salary equity. In many regional centres, the salary of public servants is way above the rest of the general population. This causes friction and complaints about those working in the 'ivory towers' of the PS.
As part of the reforms, scales of salary equity need to be introduced. I'm sure that some actuary somewhere can determine an appropriate formula, however it should go along these lines.
For those working in the major capitals of Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney full salary should apply. If you are working in a suburb of Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney and for less important capitals of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, a 95% salary should apply. Large regional cities such as Darwin, Hobart, Wollongong, Geelong, Newcastle etc a 90% salary should apply. Then down to the smaller regional cities like Ballarat, Orange, Kalgoolie, Cairns, Wagga Wagga 80% should apply. The smallest of remote towns, such as Cooma, Mildura, Charleville, Broken Hill, 70% should apply.
Scales of salary equity is exactly how the private sector works - you work in the CBD, you get paid more than if you work in a small regional town. My introducing equity, a more favourable view of the PS will be viewed by the entire population base.
2. The PSS and CSS should be abolished and those in these schemes given 12 months to move their super to somewhere else. Immediate cost savings by not needing to prop up Comsuper. By introducing employee super choices - exactly like the private sector does - will lead to increased satisfaction from employees, and will give them ownership of their future savings. Happier workers leads to higher productivity and increased morale!
3. Each and every year, all public sector employees must reapply for their job. A bold and daring suggestion? Of course! This will work wonders, in that the endemic 'dead wood' who are cluttering up many fine agencies will not win their positions and thus be purged. Another bonus of this, is that the talented individuals who want to be part of the PS will embrace this, and thus the PS will be filled with only the best quality employees. A win for everyone!
1) Reduce the number of managers that need to sign off documents before they can be released. The private sector has a much shorter command line which leads to more streamlined processing of documents and a greater sense of ownership for the individual who did most of the work.
2) Provide a science/technical stream in more government agencies. Frequently the editing effected by higher level (non-technical) managers makes gobbledegook of technical documents produced by technical/scientific staff who are not considered eligible for higher positions.
3) In line with the two above comments, consider how to broaden accountability
Certainly the wages across the Federal Public Service need to be streamlined and consistent. There is no reason why we cannot do this, if a job warrants more duties and responsiblity than another role in another APS Agency then perhaps those roles could be reclassified - I'm sure this would occur.
We want to make the APS an attractive employer - we will be competing against other employers who may pay more and offer better work-life balance options such as working from home - we need to come to the party and be in line with the global government and private sector trends to retain and attract great employees.
In line with this I would also agree that the current selection and application process for APS jobs need an overhaul - there are many people who have the requirements for the job however they do not have the skill required to address selection criteria or shine in a panel interview etc.
I also agree that it would be economically beneficial to the APS and APS employees if more roles were exported from Canberra to different cities in Australia as this would give employees more lifestyle options with: housing and family and friends. It would also be likely to retain more staff and save the APS money in terms of reducing high turnover and not having to compete within agencies in the APS.
Three ways to improve the PS – Three is not enough, but here is my priority list
1. Make all public servants responsible for their actions and held accountable for poor decision making – especially at the senior management level.
2. Reduce the top heaviness of all agencies. Some agencies are so top heavy (ATO is a classic example), that it makes it impossible to be efficient. It is time to cull some of the senior management that has been allowed to grow (out of control) with no boundaries or constraints over the past few decades.
3. Deal with the underperformance issues at ALL levels. While the PS is a ‘safe haven’ for incompetent and/or underperforming employees, nothing will ever change.
The Public Service needs to undergo an assessment and this assessment needs to address (in the first instance)three issues:
1) What does the community expect from the services their Public Service provide;
2) To what degree can the Public Service in all of its guises disengage from its separate "steady state" incarnations and adopt a more proactive and dynamic formulae for dealing with the "here and now issues" as they may unfold.
3) How does the Public Service distant itself (as best it can) from adverse political influence (external & internal);
I believe if we get these right, it would lead to the building blocks for furthering the roll out of a more capable and meaningful Public Service programs that would address many Community issues that are currently of concern.
1. Trial Period after successful application
I would like to see a trial period initiated, much the same as when you are inducted into the ATO, for successful applicants in internal processes. Often the applicant that won the position do not have the ability to translate their skills on paper into the working environment. The resulting fallout becomes a major issue for all those in the Team. There are few checks and balances conducted that realistically address under-performance in this circumstance. A trial period would riase the bar and permanent staff may not be so complacent about their performance if they knew that there were real consequences. It would reduce the workload on Manager's and Director's who's current option is to manage such cases as under performance, either formally or informally. The order of merit would allow a 2nd candidate to be easily selected if the successfuly candidate is found lacking.
2. I-Learn packages.
A fantastic resource, however, participants are often undertaking hours of reading and testing without having a frame of reference. I believe it would be beneficial to have a working knowledge of the work to be undertaken prior to commencing these training packages. As it stands there is a large volume of information with nothing to relate it to. It's only once the work is being actioned that the information filters back through and related to daily work practices. A more detailed explanation of how these process and policies relate to a role is required.
3. Career pathway.
The opportunities for career advancement in rural sites is diminishing. There is a definate gap between Metropolitan and Rural site opportunity with an acknowledged cultural belief that career advancement can only occur if you move to Metro sites, more specifically, Canberra. Whilst remote management has it's issues, talented and capable candidates are under-utilised because of their geographic location. Living outside the metropolitan area should be a lifestyle choice not a career block.
1. Information sharing amongst departments needs to be streamlined. A WOG Information Management strategy which is mandatory - most Departments don't have a strategy, or if they do it is outdated and ineffective.
2. Governance structures are too cumbersome, non-existant or totally ineffective - a frustrating thing for those trying to get things done. Somehow we need to find a model to get the WOG thing to work and put in place by people who don't have hidden agendas or are empire building.
3.one CDA for everyone- the free for all that occurred under the Howard Government where too many people (ELs and SES ) are earning way too much for what they do has finally been addressed, but the disparity still exists even interdepartmentally.
I strongly agree with these comments:
1. it is now clear that a 'best practice' approach to information management is ineffective - a mandated One-APS approach is required - possibly through an Information Management and Accountability (IMA) Act that would provide agency heads with a legislative imperative and consistent approach to address the information issue.
There is a critical need to move from the current 'implicit' culture of information to an 'explicit' culture, in which information and data roles, responsibilities, relationships, processes, capabilities and accountabilities are clearly defined and understood at all APS levels, and information and data are treated consistently as real resources and assets with tangible consequences for performance, efficiency, cost and risk.
2. the current state of APS governance directly reflects the culture of APS leadership - "new public management" is averse to real transparency and accountability, and consequently gives lip service to governance. Effective governance embraces leadership, direction, authority, stewardship, control & accountability, and provides a balanced focus on performance and conformance - this is a critical issue for political and administrative leadership
3. in a constrained market for quality people it does not make sense to have APS agencies aggressively competing between each other for good people - there needs to be some flexibility, but broadly consistent employment and remuneration standards need to be re-established across the APS (and arguably State & Territory administrations as well). In public sector employment financial remuneration generally ranks well down the priority list of motivators - employment packages should reflect this by focusing on a more balanced approach.
Use SAP more effectively to improve efficiency.
The federal public service can improve its administrative preformance through an overall cross department strategy of sharing corporate services software and procedures. This might save some time, reduce costs and create a common approach. Unfortunately most departments prefer to "reinvent the wheel" because 'we are special" or stick with manual procedures due to lack of funding. I would argue for standard federal public service administrative functions, such as finance, procurement, recruitment, training (LMS), accommdation/real estate management, accounts payable/receivable automation, travel mgt, project management, reporting and analysis, enterprise asset management, time and effort recording, safety and quality management - that federal agencys could start with a generic approach and then customise as they learn.
How - use SAP ERP as the base software (in line with Gershon) to support department processes and procedures.
Whats my point? Most Federal agencies use a software product called SAP. All to a varying degree and in different ways, but its the same base product. To save time and money, if each department configured one module, that iIntellectual property (IP) could be SHARED and rolled out across all departments. This would be in line with the Governments shared service objectives and Gershon's recommendation to better use existing COTS products in place, whilst cutting costs, introducing common practice across departments and growing skills and knowledge through common functionality and process.
The problem: Money, lack of. If the Prime Minister could offer special funding, a one off grant to cover configuration costs - one grant for of each SAP module above might help. Departments could nominate who would configure which component and then once implemented in their agency, offer the IP configuration settings to other participating agencies/ departments involved in the program. One agency/ department would need to co-ordinate and control who was doing what (perhaps they could built the project management module).
Issue: it would mean investing in one software product - SAP. However this product is already licenced and owned by most departments / agencies but not fully used. IP issues - it would be necessary to clear this proposal with SAP to ensure they were "on-board" and the solution didnt breach any licencing conditions. It may require a clarification about software sourcing so the Govt didnt breach its procurement guidelines and was in line with direct sourcing.
Benefits: The SAP software product would be more effectively used, the solutions could be built once and then shared. Overall costs should reduce. A single platform will improve the ability of federal agencies to share data and report in a common manner. For example if all departments used the SAP Project Mgt module to manage the project approvals, workloads, costs, status, etc - reporting on Govt project status should become much easier and transparent.
Example: Department of Environment has a great base "Procurement solution". It meets all procurement requirements and could be rolled out across all agencys/departments (providing they were willing). Issue: some departments may need to purchase an SAP "add-on product" and pay the configuration and testing costs. IP sharing would need to be "cleared" with the department and SAP Australia. Direct Sourcing procurement guidelines would need to be understood and any issues resolved.
Every department reinventing core functions to perform 'their way' has a significant cost. At present departments are divided, the focus should be to share IP.
I generally support these comments, to the extent that there is a clear need and opportunity for significant rationalisation and reduction of ERP costs across the APS.
However, rather than continuing to invest in ERP technology at the agency level, it may be more sensible to establish a 'One-APS' online services environment for ERP services. This would be a true 'shared services' environment, in which ERP service providers would provide services that conformed with relevant APS standards, including common reporting standards.
There would not necessarily be a requirement to use a single provider - it may be desirable to maintain some level of competition between ERP providers. The key issue is to enable the APS to leverage its scale effectively to get the right quality and mix of ERP services at the lowest overall cost - the current approach does not do this. The likelihood is that there would be a small pool of ERP service providers catering to the needs of large, medium and small agencies.
The benefit of this approach is that it puts the risks of effectively implementing and utilising ERP technology back on the side of the providers - not the agencies. Agencies would only pay for the actual services that they used - not chunks of technology.
As a new employee I can only really speak from personal experience. However, I believe these personal experiences are indicative of a system that has overcomplicated itself to the point of almost no return and one in which leadership and accountability at many levels, but perhaps more so at the higher levels appears to be sorely lacking.
1). The main issue/concern which has directly impacted on my work is the lack of resources to actually carry out my duties as described in my position/job description. Specialist software (which was promised in the first week of my employment) is now no longer available, (still really can't find out the reason why). IT seems to control this far to much and appear only to be familiar with the standard "Office suite." Statistics in Excel are hardly sufficient for scientific research. The specialist PC required to undertake the research has only just arrived this week (a hand me down at that too) after 8 months. So in essence after 8 months of filling in time I finally have the computer to undertake my job, but no software. Library resources, I have access to none, as the Dept has been "negotiating" for the last 6 months. I'm afraid the attitude of "find someone who is a student and use their login" is not really acceptable. I get the distinct impression that as a whole the Dept is too focused on policy and has forgotten that policy needs to be based on "something" and while people are "dreaming" up policy without anyone actually running the Department and making things happen the machine will eventaully grind to a halt.
2). The lack of apparent long term planning in regard to anything really is very unsettling. We seem to be moved from desk to desk, building to building. It is hard to know if you should unpack your things or not sometimes. There seems to be no clear direction or long term plan as to where people wil be accomodated. To me as a lower level employee this indicates a lack of long term planning in many other areas as well. If you can't even plan for future accomodation requirements, what else can't you plan for? If there is a long term plan, it certainly isn't communicated.
3) As a new employee there is much emphasis on what my obligations are to the APS but very little on the APS obligations to me (e.g such as being paid correctly, having my super paid on time, having my leave balances etc. up to data and accurate). People never perform well, when they feel they are being spoken "at" and once you start messing with their pay, leave and super you are even less likely to get anything productive out of them. Yes, things do go wrong, but people will be more accepting if you communicate with them beforehand, not wait until mutiny abounds before you finally inform people about what is going on with their entitlements. If you can't pay your people properly, what else isn't done properly?
In essence, appropriate resourcing, long term planning, and communication up and DOWN the chain.
1) Review public service super arrangements so they are able to be continued if an employee leaves the PS to work privately. The current CSS/PSS discourage people to leave as the future cost to their super is to high. This "traps" disgruntled and therefore inefficient staff in the APS for long periods leading up to retirement or VR. Such a mobile super scheme will also improve the public servant for life syndrome. Some of these staff are holding down a job that someone with "real life" experience could more effectively contribute to. A vast majority of APS staff want to do a good job and get satisfaction from that job. A small percentage of "trapped" disgruntleds usually create blockages at the middle management/junior SES levels and cascade their poor attitude down the line.
2) Improve mobility across agencies and put in place encouragements to move agencies periodically. The current system of inequitable pay scales discourages mobility and can leave teh same people in the same jobs for an extended number of years. This in turn stifles innovation and new ideas as all staff grow stale over time. Rare is the employee who maintains enthusiasm for doing the same job day in day out year in year out. (New ideas are also stifled by the consequences of a failure directly effecting a Govt. minister. If it is possible to reasonably decouple that link far more innovation would come from the APS.)
3) Be careful of the language used. Gone is the term citizen as everyone is refered to as a customer or a client. That is fine in the for-profit enterprise as their whole reason for existing is to attract a customer/client and part them from their money and move on to the next one. In the APS it serves to isolate the customers/clients through language and promotes the us and them or worse us vs them. Return to the language of citizen which incorporates the citizen into the process, they are a part of it they belong. It is their APS and they have a stake in the services provided to themselves and their fellow citizens. For the APS staff member they are dealing with a fellow citizen, someone who belongs to the same community as them, someone they want to help. They are not dealing with a cutomer/client as quickly as possible to move on to the next with little regard for the customer/client outcome. Such a boring little thing as language can have a profound effect on attitudes and culture. An extreme and unrelated example being racism.
1. In the case of bullying / harrassment incidents have a policy in place that ensures any complainant has the freedom to lodge issues without their having a detrimental impact upon career advancement, instead of lip service that this will not occur.
2. Consider a staff swap with PSA snr staff with exces in private industry for a short term secondment period (e.g 3 months) so there is a greater awareness of what really happens in private enterprises and how they really work to enhamce a better industry understanding on both sides. While security issues surface this has worked in the USA, so why not here.
3. Create an intra governmental forum ( think tank) ( with reps ( two tiers down from top role) from major depts) to review potential tax implications upon their activities before they raise their heads, thus facilitating a whole of Govt approach.
1. Please cut the slack put on your call centre staff that are over worked, undervalued and under appreciated, micromanaged and treated like little school children with little chance of promotion or transfers. The way upper management treats the call centre staff in ATO, Medicare, Centrelink etc is repulisive and subtly bullying, not personally or directly as that way they can not get caught. Pretty much I know I for one feel sick in the guts coming into work and when I got chest pains and was rushed to hospital they were very caring thinking I was having a heart attack, however when the doctor at the hospital advised it was anxiety stress, they said if I can't handle the job I should quit, which is a bit hard when I have a mortgage to pay. The Government should crack down on management and uppermanagement in government call centres, whilst not as bad as the private counter parts they are catching up with increased micro managing monitoring. I have proven to be an outstanding worker in other parts of the gov't agency, but they still won't give me off phone work when they know I thrive on it as I am not one of the favourites. I cry at home each night as I feel like a nothing. Employee Assistance Program, Concern etc are useless as they can't move me off phones. The unions are useless as I do not want to be named and blacklisted. Upper mgt do not support anon compliants, and there is no freedom of speech without repucussions of no promotion or transfer. This is a disgrace.
2. Stop the incredible waste of time & money that the selection processes for promotion & higher duties are. More emphasis should be made of work performance to many times people are promoted that are good at writing applications & inter views but are not capable of doing the job. If people are doing there current job well but are on higher duties they should be made substantive in that position this would help with the effiencey of the APS because the people that are capable would be doing the position.
3. Word all documentation in plain simple English not bureacratic technical jargon.
Suggestion 1 - reduce the senior executive service, and the senior leadership across the board of the APS. In the Tax Office at this time, there is an identified 11,000 managers, or just under 45% of the staff pool. This figure is probably skewed, the actual number of direct managers would be closer to 1/3rd allowing for technical leader roles, but that is significantly too much oversight. This ensures that as each leader raises objectiosn and questions on new ideas or approaches, that these ideas are then destroyed through inactivity. We need a lean, effective command structure - fast, decisive, consultative. ANY and EVERY organisation should have a pyramid shape - the bulk of staff in operational roles, a thinner band of junior leaders, a small band of senior leaders, and a tiny head of top dogs. The PS now has a large column, somewhat tapered at top AND bottom!
Suggestion 2 - The use of external consultants for services fully available within an agency is a criminal waste of funds. If an external view is wanted, take on staff from another public service agency.
Suggestion 3 - Visionary leadership. Leaders focus on short term victories, a reduction in staff, a reduction in costs, a brief spike in outputs to glorify themself and maybe their leader. Leaders have lost sight of the fact it is their staff that are their most critical asset. The staff then begin to underperform, however the cause of the problem - the useless leader - has been promoted due to "excellence" in productivity management!
There is too many change of Focus in the area we work in . There are constant change of srategies doing different projects .Change of focus can be good and people can learn from it but it does not work really well when changes are happening too fast . with the resul of the employee going through frustration that he has not learned enough of the new job before ther is already a new change anounced. This frustration leads to low performance and disenchancment of the govt sector thus affecting the capability to work efficintely and lose motivation.
Also the uncertainity that this constant change of focus creates is another factor that is constantly there in the employess mind .. which also can be a factor in failing to appreciate the job we are doing more and be more motivated to put more into the work and excel.
Thanks
Jerome
1/ Look to consolidate like businessess across Dept's. an obvious example to me is the Debt recovery business. These are high volume businessess which can benefit from applying specific technology and structures to gain effeciencies.(Thus reduced costs). Currently one person could potentially recieve a call from the ATO, Centrelink and Child support all asking for a slice of the pie!, a consolidated recovery agency would mean this person explains themselves once and can expect a personalised solution from a whole of Government perspective.(Improved service) everyone wins.
2/ We need to recognise "Leadership" as it's own career path, totally seperate from the Technical capability career path. To many times I have seen good leaders miss opportunities in Leadership roles because they couldn't explain how to move widgit A to line up with field B under legislation requirement 2.6.5.1.4, (you get my point). We need highly skilled technical people, but they are in a lot of cases not the people we want in leadership roles. Very rarely do you have the accountant running the accountancy firm?
3/ I would like to see more dispersement of the APS around the country - I fully recognise the benefits of centralisation and efficiency of scale for parts of the business, but many could be done out of APS shared offices in woop woop, making us an employer of choice, injecting more diversity and allowing flexibility for current employees (with aging workforce)- can access a seechange/treechange but we retain corperate knowledge.
1. Be less risk adverse. Over the years the approvals and sign offs that are required to get things done has risen up the ranks. It now requires at least an EL2 or SES to sign off everything before something can happen. There are only small things like systems access, approvals for certain leave types, attending external training courses. These need to be brought back down to the team leader level where it was previously done (APS 6). This has resulted in more higher level staff being required and savings could be made.
2. Continuous training to update our leaders on skills required to lead and manage teams. We spend time at the beginning but often don't keep this up during their career.
3. Better ability to transfer within and to other departments. This will increase the skills base of the staff and bring new ideas into the area. Team leaders are hesitant to take on the unknown when they could take from within their own area.
1. Change the work culture for many by making training in basic Administrative Law universal across the APS. A 1 day course by a proficient presenter was enough to change and enrich my view of my work and its context.
Most staff pick up 'what' and 'how' they do their particular work by specific procedures training or something well removed from the open understanding of the wider basis for their duties, and where their powers start and finish. That is, the much bigger 'why' they do their specific task is not often explained.
I believe it would give all public servants a much greater level of understanding and context for their place in the wider and important scheme of administering the various powers of the APS.
2. As mentioned many times previously above, a less Canberra - centric senior and general recruitment shift will give a more diverse pool and reflective of the wider Australian community experience with potential for more broad work experience coming through (i.e from 'all walks of life' not just our well established personal diversity policies). The agency policies or directives that come from Canberra may sometimes lack the practicality or sensitivity of the community service interface experience /perspective that is generally understood by the 'coalface' locations. The wider public perceptions and cliches of 'out of touch' bureaucrats would also lessen.
3. Recruitment and advancement processes are always big issues if perceived to be unfair. A more lateral approach may be to do objective psychometric testing of all applicants.
Do those who managed to get past the application stage by including more 'hot words' than the person next to them, have better people skills, judgement, etc than those who may have been shortlisted out by a computer word scan?
As someone above noted, we overlook the applicants by over emphasising the applications. You can't get someone to ghost write your psychometric test, can you?
Qualified immigrants
Recent experience has showed that though a qualified migrants it is difficult to enter work force and cannot apply into federal public service until one gains citizenship. Where has the word diversity and skill sharing gone?? As for applying for local government job as a first job, reasons given are did not have australian experience. How could one have this if one has just migrated. Contradicting this is when one applies for a traineeship position then are being told that they are too qualified (that is Bachelor of Science degree from overseas which qualified the migrant to enter Australia). Really dont get it and so I guess we need a service where these disrepancies are realised and soughted out.
1. Get back to being a PUBLIC SERVICE; lose the idea that we are a business. We do not have share holders. The Call Centres are the front line in most government agencies and are therefore the public face of the public service. The public are entitled to accurate and timely information to their questions. The current thinking that staff burn out in a call centre and therefore it is natural to have a high staff turnover needs to be revised. Rapid staff turnover loses expertise. Therefore we need to be looking at ways to make the Call Centre environment such that staff do not burn out. We need to build and value expertise gained by experience, which will in turn build public confidence.
2. It is not reasonable to expect that Call Centres to answer queries on a multitude of topics confidently and accurately no matter how much scripting is provided. Scripted answers do not inspire confidence. It is reasonable for the public to receive an answer to a query that is provided by someone who has a reasonable understanding of the topic, and an understanding of the implications of relevant issues surrounding the question. This sort of understanding is not arrived at from scripting. It is arrived at through experience. Therefore the Call Centres should only be answering a small amount of topics in detail. The vast majority of topics should be answered at the time of the first phone call by the relevant departments that have enough expertise to understand any associated issues that could impact on the caller. Therefore use the Call Centres to answer calls on only a very few topics in depth, topics that the staff have been trained fully in and therefore the scripting is a memory jogger only. Other than those very few topics use the reference systems for Call Centre staff to ascertain which department the call needs to be transferred for an in depth answer to other queries.
3. One suggestion for possibly retaining staff in Call Centres is to place a monetary recognition of the unique Call Centre environment. The Call Centres by their nature are comparatively restrictive compared to most other departments in the same agencies. This needs to be acknowledged, and an attendance bonus would do this. A more supportive environment and monetary recognition would go a considerable way to helping retain staff and helping staff to feel valued.
1. Performance Management - the APS needs to move away from a competency based model of performacne management and selection, to one that is 'results based'. If comeptency based systems worked as well as the theory suggests, we wouldn't be looking for suggestions for improvement now. Communism also works well in theory. A results focus will establish clear benchmarks of performance, positively addressing current challenges regarding remedial performance mangement, promotion, retention, reward and recogntion etc. Public service agencies should be held accountable against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) over which they have control. These KPIs should be quantifiably assessable and measurable right down to the level of the individual and their specific contirbution. This will ensure that everyone in the organisation works toward a common goal - something achieved int he private sector but not pursued with any vigour in the APS. KPIs of the standard I advocate are very much achievable in the public sector and union propogation that the APS is unique and perofrmance cannot be measured is an attempt to resist moving toward a more accountable environment.
2. Introduce competition - what is tradtionally dubbed as 'red tape' is nothing more than a culture of delay because the public service does not rely on making decisions in a timely manner. Decisions are delayed because there is no danger in maintaining the status quo - in fact this is often the preferred option and serves as the biggest hinderance to innovation and forward progress. This can be overcome by introducing a more robust 'results based' performance management system (mentioned above). The second step is to eliminate the monopoly that prevents public sector agencies from being benchmarked against a competitor, by administratively dividing each agency into two or more administrative groups (with apropriate funding, resources etc) allowing for the performance of each group to be benchmarked against the other(s). The spirit of competition will immediately change the mangement culture from one that preserves the status quo - to one focused on improving performance, making timely decisions, and encouraging innovation. The introduction of healthy competition will also assist in identifying high performers who would be approporiately targetted for promotion and further development. So too it will aid in identifying poor performers and provide clearer guidance about what performance issues need to be addressed. This has been a considerable challenge for APS agencies before the Industrial Relations Commission for such issues.
3. Impemented these changes quickly - anyone following the Baby Boomer, Gen x, Gen Y demographics will unerstand that resistance to change is directly proportional to age. With an influx of younger workers, the oporutnity exists to make significant cultural changes now and cement these new cultural changes in the younger to middle aged workers. Undue delays will do nothing but entrench the current culture into new APS emp0loyees, making it even more difficult to intiate later.
1. Selection and Recruitment.
Successful applicants in internal processes should have to complete a trial period to ensure they are capable of the role they have assumed. Often people are promoted into roles that they are not suited to or do not display the ability to quickly acquire the knowledge necessary to function in the role. A probationary period should have to apply to all permanent APS positions to ensure that the best people for the job are infact operating in those roles. Permanancy shouldn't preclude efficiency and capability.
2. Career pathway. Whilst there is ample opportunity in the major centres for advancement, often rural sites are stagnant and in there is a perception that the site is reducing the operation functionality and career pathway opportunities. It would be beneficial to dissolve the cultural acknowledgement and belief that to advance, you have to relocate to Canberra.
3. I-learn packages. This resource is a use tool, however, often participant's undertaking these packages have no frame of reference to the material they are undertaking. New recruits to Sections should be provided with a working knowledge base of the work undertaken in their new role, prior to launching into hours of reading and testing with little understanding of how these packages relate to their daily work practices.
1. Selection and Recruitment.
Successful applicants in internal processes should have to complete a trial period to ensure they are capable of the role they have assumed. Often people are promoted into roles that they are not suited to or do not display the ability to quickly acquire the knowledge necessary to function in the role. A probationary period should have to apply to all permanent APS positions to ensure that the best people for the job are infact operating in those roles. Permanancy shouldn't preclude efficiency and capability.
2. Career pathway. Whilst there is ample opportunity in the major centres for advancement, often rural sites are stagnant and in there is a perception that the site is reducing the operation functionality and career pathway opportunities. It would be beneficial to dissolve the cultural acknowledgement and belief that to advance, you have to relocate to Canberra.
3. I-learn packages. This resource is a use tool, however, often participant's undertaking these packages have no frame of reference to the material they are undertaking. New recruits to Sections should be provided with a working knowledge base of the work undertaken in their new role, prior to launching into hours of reading and testing with little understanding of how these packages relate to their daily work practices.
1. The APS needs to understand that management skills do not ever just develop automatically merely as a result of progressing through the ranks (often on the basis of skills that have little or nothing to do with management). Further, it needs to be accepted that some very fine public servants will never make good managers. Their skills need to be optimally used, and properly recognised with commensurate status/ emolument, but without their being allowed to become managers by default.
2. The ‘default manager’ is just one manifestation of the widespread matching of square pegs with round holes in the APS. This must change. It needs to be easier for people to move, and be moved, both within and between agencies. Where there is a mismatch between work plans and the skills of the personnel expected to carry them out, either the plans or the skills or the personnel must be changed. While changing the people may be the most efficient and effective option, this is at present really cumbersome no matter how much the people involved might themselves wish to be ‘changed’.
3. While accepting that a focus on accountability is reasonable in the APS, ways must be found to ensure that it neither stifles risk-taking nor derogates the importance of informal/ interpersonal aspects of public service work.
1. allow agencies to reinvest productivity dividends and I&T efficiencies into better services, rather than reducing the budget of the agency. Develop more sophisiticated and accurate measures of anticipated productivity gains from I&T rahter than the inflated promises of consultants with a vested interest.
2. ensure parity of remuneration across APS agencies and departments. An EL1 in one dept or agency should receive the same salary as any other EL1 in the APS.
1. States and Commonwealth need to get together and eliminate duplication by the various public services.
2. Introduce a sabbatical policy for all public service /state public service/tertiary education AND private enterprise. One year every seven should be a transfer to another business/public service/location/educational institution etc. This would reduce entrenchment, broaden views and greatly increase diversity and skills. A more tolerant and flexible workforce would be the result. It is not just about improving the public service, but also improving the public service relationship with the rest of the community and workforce.
3. Introduce a consistent /structured and highly valued policy feedback scheme into every department. Create an environment where the staff working with the public not only are valued for their work, but also for their ideas. The current adhoc/random policy formulation by management is not efficient and only reinforces the notion that " Why should I give any constructive ideas , they don't listen to me anyway"
1. One change that would make a big difference to front line staff would be to re-assess the letters sent to customers. I have worked for the APS for many years and feedback has been provided about the letters sent to customers but no change has been made. The reason for a decision needs to be correct and clear on the letter. I think a lot of customer contact could be avoided if the letters sent were clear and made sense.
2. I think there is too much focus on the speed at which work is done. I think managers need to question the level of service being provided by staff who work very quickly.
I believe that the APS would obtain financial and efficiency benefits by establishing a single source for security claearances. A single security clearance across the APS would mean that employees could move between departments without needing to re-do their clearances and the criteria for clearances would also be standardised.
I also believe that the APS should continue with the Whole of Government initiatives to provide a single on-line presence for the community. IT resources and technologies could be shared between departments and wherever possible, reused within the APS.