social pharmacy d-pharm 1st year by Pragati K. Mahajan
Grant Fund Case Study Report
1. AoC Grant Fund Projects:
New Models of Delivery
Creating the environment for reinvention and innovation
Introduction
It is undoubtedly This short report summarises six project case
true that reductions studies (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/case-
in government studies) that received assistance from the Shared
funding have been Services Grand Fund to implement new ideas,
a key motivator for models, techniques and strategies for the benefit of
the surge of interest the further education (FE) sector as a whole.
in shared services
and new models of The Six Project Case Studies are:
delivery over the
last three years. In `` City College Norwich – Transforming
the wake of seed Education in Norfolk
funding from the
`` The Wessex Federation
Skills Funding
Agency, simply `` Federation of Strategic Services
saving money may `` Shared Services Sussex and Surrey Colleges
be the key aspiration
`` Adult Enterprise
of new partnerships
and collaborations `` Quality Improvement using lean and six sigma
but there are many processes
other aspects to be
considered.
2. Setting up new models of delivery
The diversity of shared service projects is a credit to the many architects of the new FE legal paradigm.
Groups of Colleges are now collaborating and exploring new models of delivery in ways unimaginable
immediately after the era of incorporation. Whilst the visions and outcomes of each project can range
from simply sharing practice on enrolment procedures to creating a new educational landscape for
adult enterprise, the underlying leadership and change-management processes used are remarkably
similar.
Robin Gadd, Project Director for the Wessex Foundation, summed up the three stages as:
Can we do this? (Feasibility study)
Should we do this? (Business case)
How are we going to do this? (Implementation plan)
The South East Group of Colleges using Lean and Six Sigma processes articulates the common journey
in a little more detail:
identify specific elements of provision that need to be improved
identify all associated processes and their physical locations
determine the current baseline performance for each chosen issue
identify the current cost and impact of the issue
clearly articulate the intended outcome
identify and recruit appropriate staff to the project team, and finally
begin the quality improvement journey.
Permeating all of the above stages was the need for carefully considered communication plans.
Tim Strickland, Managing Director of the SISSC project (Shared Services in Sussex and Surrey
Colleges) and CEO of FE Sussex Ltd states: “All of our Principals coordinated the release of important
communiques, so that debates happened at the same time in each College.” As well as the top down
release of vision and overall direction, Dick Palmer, Chief Executive of Transforming Education in
Norfolk (the TEN Group) is clear that staff need to be fully involved in the evolution of the ideas and
processes: “You have to manage the staff engagement regularly – you can’t do it with one roadshow
and an email.” Robin Gadd, Project Director for the Wessex Federation, described this as using
“Internal politicians to drive implementation”.
Most projects, however, recognised an additional and essential step that comes before: ‘Can we do
this?’ For collaborations such as SSISC (Shared Services in Sussex Colleges), this preliminary step
was taken over a decade ago by the formation of FE Sussex Ltd. Through years of sub-regional
collaboration, the partners had developed a level of trust that enabled them to enter into shared
service discussions free from suspicions and ulterior motives.
3. Models and legal structures
At the outset of any large scale collaborative project, there can be a temptation to create a fully
articulated vision of how the new partnership will work. What is clear from this series of case studies,
however, is that while it is important to be clear about overall aspirations, the journey to pragmatism
will be buffeted and shaped by the demands of others, the expertise of operational staff, and the
regulatory frameworks of stakeholders. For five of the projects, this resulted in the formation of a
separate, but wholly owned, limited company. The advantages of this model are that agreements
become binding, providing a secure footing for financial planning and in some instances the
employment of shared service staff. The approach also enables partnerships to meet the requirements
of the VAT cost-sharing exemption and competitions law. Within this approach, however, are
important variations. Three of the newly created companies are limited by guarantee, one is limited
by shares, and one is a limited liability partnership.
Whilst this is still an unfolding picture, it is clear that the project teams want to limit their liabilities,
without limiting their possibilities. Partnerships choosing the limited by guarantee option, with its
accountabilities to members rather than shareholders and focus on the ‘community’ it serves rather
than profit, often go on to seek charitable status. For Matt Atkinson, Principal of City College Bath
and Chair of Adult Enterprise states this decision isn’t clear cut: “There’s a downside to charitable
status as it can actually limit what you can do.” If the partnership’s aim is simply to set up a joint
venture to service its members’ needs, then limited by guarantee with charitable status may well be an
appropriate vehicle. So it is the grandness of the vision that determines the final choice of legal entity.
For the TEN Group and SSISC teams, ambition to grow an important part of the project aims. They
do not want restrictions on their ability to raise finance or, for SSISC at least, to provide a commercial
service for other colleges and the wider education sector. Tim Strickland highlighted the fact that
SISSC Ltd is a joint College enterprise and, like any other venture, has targets to meet and costs to
cover.
For the remaining Grant Fund projects, focused on sharing and developing good practice and joint
procurement, there was no need to create a separate business entity.
Outcomes
Whilst outcomes will inevitably become clearer over time, there will probably never be a definitive list
for any of the shared services projects due to the complexities and far-reaching effects of these new
initiatives. That said, it can clearly be seen from the six Grant Fund case studies, that all have achieved
their first-year savings targets – and much more.
Common to all of the case studies, and the shared service agenda as a whole, is the recognition that
the FE paradigm has changed and that there has never been a better time to invest in innovation
– sweeping away the accumulation of ‘established’ practice and the tradition of incremental
improvement in favour of reinvention. Colleges have teamed up not simply to share good practice, but
to share their issues and challenges.
Back-office practices have been re-engineered and the new possibilities provided by ever-increasing
IT capabilities are being realised, resulting in service improvement and staffing efficiencies. From
increasing utilisation of staff involved with collective procurement, to reducing the number of human
transaction in a supply chain, year one savings from these six case studies alone is in the region of
£4M. Forecast savings rise to many millions by the end of year five. However does this represent the
