|
Phase Two: Organisational Review: Final Report
22 August 2003
Previous Page
/ Table of Contents /
Next Page
Appendix
Five: Summary of Main Themes Emerging
from Submissions/ Feedback Sessions and Responses Given
This material summarises the main points/themes that emerged
from the consultation exercise. With the exception of the first
point, they have been summarised under the main headings used in
the Final Report, for ease of reference.
There Is Nothing Broken ...
Some of the submissions expressed some surprise at the changes
recommended in the draft report because the Phase 1 report
concluded that "nothing was broken". My interpretation of the
Review teams comments was that there was nothing fundamentally
wrong with the Ministry. There was no function missing, for
example. However, that does not mean that there are no
improvements that can be made to improve the performance of the
organisation.
Limitations of the Current
Organisational Arrangements
Feedback on the limitations section of the draft proposals was
generally supportive of the points made. In particular people
appeared to relate to the need for a flatter management structure
"the previous management role sitting between the
GM and the
ESS and
TM line managers was
largely superfluous" and clarity around accountabilities and
authorities. Submissions also supported the need for additional
focus on research and on "information in rather than out". Most
submissions focussed on the "silos" issue in some way, many
acknowledging that this issue has been around for some time and
it does "hamper MCA's
ability to achieve". Many submissions cautioned that a new
structure could bring with it the risk of new "silos". Several
submissions made the point that good management, clear role
descriptions, accountabilities, authorities and personal
performance expectations could be used to reduce or remove this
potential risk.
Some took exception to some of the comments made, however. One
staff member made the point that the "road-show" approach to
third-party training referred to on page 5 could be seen as an
example of "cross-branch" work rather than a "silo approach".
This comment has been removed from the final paper. The
NUPE
submission challenged much of comments made about "silos" on page
5 of the draft report. I have removed the reference to having a
separate Māori projects officer for
MCA and
ESS having the
potential to create silos in response to part of this comment. In
response to remainder of this point I can only comment that most
of the points made were either supported by submissions/feedback
or comments in previous reviews, such as the Review of
Planning Processes conducted by Tom Roache in June 2002.
Comment
The critical point I took from the submissions and feedback on
the limitations section was that while structural changes may
have an impact, they will not of themselves address problems of,
for example, lack of communication or knowledge transfer. This
essentially comes down to culture within the branch which is
itself dependent on the incentives that the various systems and
processes set up. Constantly reviewing and enhancing these
systems is a key accountability of the General Manager in
conjunction with the branch management team.
Proposed Branch Structure
This issue is dealt with at the end of this section.
Strengthen Policy Capability
Of those submissions that commented on the policy proposal,
the majority supported the proposed increase in the capacity of
the team. The following points were also made:
- Some staff were concerned that separating policy from
operations would result in policy/operations silos. Others
were of the view that the policy team should maintain an
overview of all branch policy at the strategic level. A number
of those who commented on the silo issue indicated that this
issue could be dealt with through clear accountabilities and
performance expectations that stressed working together. With
respect to Energy Safety policy those who commented indicated
that they believed that the proposed arrangement could work as
long as good processes were put in place to ensure that
ES policy and operations
continued to work closely together.
- It was suggested that the introduction of a Chief Analyst
would result in role confusion with the Manager, Policy
(particularly if the Chief Analyst managed staff). It was also
suggested that it could also make the role of senior advisor
less attractive as the more exciting and challenging projects
would fall to the Chief Advisor. Some submissions also
questioned whether
MCA attracted the type of work and was disparate enough
in its functions to support a Chief Analyst.
- A staff member suggested that new policy positions, with
the exception of the ES
policy positions, should be "untagged" to promote flexibility
and reduce "silos" within teams. Likewise steps should be
taken within the policy team to ensure that subject
specialisation does not result in succession problems.
- Staff also recommended that the policy team role
descriptions incorporate an accountability that mirrors the
knowledge transfer component in the "Market Intelligence"
Group accountabilities.
Comment
Having considered the feedback on the Policy Capability
proposals I reached following conclusions.
First, I agree with the feedback that the Policy team have
responsibility for strategic ("big P) policy frameworks for the
entire branch, this includes strategic weights and measures
policy as well as consumer safety and strategic policy on
consumer information standards (i.e. Labelling). The policy team
should undertake policy projects in conjunction with appropriate
operations staff (both operational policy and operations). Where
a strategic weights and measures or product safety issue arises,
for example, a project team would be assembled comprising policy
and operations staff. The lead role for these policy projects
could be either with the policy or operations teams. In the case,
for example, of the current fiscal year project on the scope of
national measurement activity, the lead role would be with the
Senior Advisor, Legal Metrology (part of
MAPS
team).
There are a number of reasons for my conclusions in this area:
- Combining all strategic policy advice into one team
provides greater potential for coherency and alignment of
policy advice across the branch. As Creating Confident
Consumers indicated, each component of the consumer
outcomes framework needs to be working in a consistent
direction in order for the desired high level outcome to be
achieved. To achieve this it is important that the underlying
policy frameworks are aligned. Having responsibility for all
high level policy frameworks in one team will also facilitate
consideration of alignment/linkages between consumer and
energy safety policy and economic development.
- Under the past and current transitional arrangements,
[6] each of the
"business units" within the branch was relatively
self-sufficient and the incentives to work across the branch
not particularly strong. The combination of the strengthened
focus on understanding what works for whom, with the
structural, accountability and process proposals should create
greater interdependencies across the branch. Knowledge
transfer will be a core accountability in all role
descriptions and should be reinforced through performance
expectations. Taken together these factors should provide
greater incentives for working together across the branch with
resulting benefits in terms of better informed policy and
service delivery.
With respect to Energy Safety policy, I believe that the
incorporation of energy safety policy staff within the policy
team will have positive spin-offs in terms of the synergies
between the two policy areas and the application of policy
disciplines. However, I remain open to the idea that amalgamation
of this function with energy safety operations could be a medium
term objective once operational systems have been enhanced and
bedded in. This could be timed to coincide with the completion of
the bulk of the Energy-safe regulatory work programme.
The proposed transfer of the Senior Product Safety Advisor to
the policy team below as part of the Measurement and Product
Safety proposal.
Chief Advisor
Careful consideration has been given to the comments made in
submissions regarding the Chief Advisor. The key capability the
Chief Advisor would bring to the team, the branch and
MED as a
whole is intellectual leadership. They would be recruited for
ability to engage across any discipline and to add significant
value in terms of intellectual/analytical leadership regardless
of whether they have detailed knowledge of the subject at hand or
not. They would be expected to being working predominantly on
cross-MED
and cross-departmental projects. The "Chief Advisor" skill is one
that is frequently contracted in by departments in recent times
to deal with complex, often systemic policy problems, where a
robust way forward needs to found in a relatively short space of
time.
The difference between a senior advisor and a chief advisor is
one of degree. A minimum expectation of a chief advisor is that
they can provide intellectual/analytical leadership across a wide
range of disciplines and are able to quickly apply policy
frameworks to new issues or complex problems and identify a path
forward. A senior advisor is not expected to sustain the level of
cross-disciplinary intellectual leadership or work on complex
policy problems expected of a chief advisor. They would more
frequently be providing intellectual leadership within an area
related to their field of expertise.
The Chief Advisor will not have staff management or day-to-day
team leadership responsibilities, though they will be expected to
provide significant intellectual leadership to the team. In this
way I do not think that there will be any scope for confusion
between the Chief Advisor and the Manager, Policy. Likewise, I do
not accept the argument that the Chief Advisor will diminish the
attractiveness of the senior advisor positions within the policy
team. On the contrary, I believe that the existence of the Chief
Advisor will give us entrée into more challenging policy projects
that will extend the experiences, skills and capabilities of the
other members of the policy team (The rising tide lifts all
boats).
Titles in General
The PSA asked
a question on behalf of members about the difference between an
advisor and an analyst. The answer is that the terms tend to be
used interchangeably across
MED and the
public sector. I have decided that I will use the term advisor
and apply it consistently.
Market Intelligence Group
There was considerable support for the idea of refocusing the
current Consumer Information Service on information in, as
opposed to largely information out and on building a research and
evaluative capacity. I have also received considerable
endorsement of the idea of combining information dissemination
responsibilities in one place in order to gain efficiencies and
greater consistency in "look and feel" of information products.
Concern was expressed:
- about the title of the Group and the Market Practice
Officers.
- about the potential workload of the Market Practice
Officers (can 4 advisors deal with this workload?)
- by NUPE
that research expertise is being funded through
reprioritisation and efficiency savings.
NUPE
proposes that the current organisational structure be
maintained with research functions added to certain roles
within each business unit.
NUPE
also propose that
MCA apply for funding for a certain number of full-time
research positions per business unit and provide each
identified role with a portion of that funding.
- About potential overlaps between Market Practice Officers
and Capability Advisors in terms of relationship building.
- As to whether the Team Leader (REM)
was justified. However, this concern was dropped during the
development of draft role descriptions when it became more
obvious that there was a clear Team Leader role.
- About whether the full potential of the Capability Advisor
position (Community) was being exploited (the ability to use
networks to gain information on consumer issues) and whether
initially it is a part-time position.
- Regarding whether the Information Advisor Position was
sufficiently "interesting" to provide job satisfaction.
- About the possible impacts of reducing the number of
specific Māori positions across the branch; and that the
- Research/Evaluation Advisor position should be required to
develop relationships with community agencies, as some of the
key sources of qualitative information and case studies.
Comment
Name of Market Intelligence Group
There appears to be virtually unanimous agreement that the
name Market Intelligence (or any name that includes the term
"intelligence") will either be incomprehensible or misunderstood
by target audiences. The title "Research, Information and
Capability Group" appears to have general acceptance. I have also
decided to retitle the proposed Market Practice Advisors,
Advisor, Consumer Issues. This would replace the existing title
of Advisor, Consumer Law. Individuals in these positions would
not be required to have a law degree though those with law
degrees would be free to have LLB
on their business cards. It is my view that this approach is less
likely to result in consumers mistaking our advice as a legal
opinion. It is also consistent with the current person
specification for this position, which states that a law degree
or legal training is desirable but not essential.
Workload Issues for Market Practice Advisors
As noted above, concern was expressed at the size of the
Market Practice Advisor positions.
NUPE have
indicated that they have significant health and safety concerns
as a result. The intention of the proposals in the
OIR was
essentially to make minimal changes to the existing Consumer Law
Advisors' core tasks. Instead the proposal was to shift the
primary focus from the provision of information advice and
guidance to the identification of consumer issues that may result
in significant consumer detriment to facilitate policy or
operational responses as necessary. The provision of information
and advice remains an objective, just not the primary objective.
I have given considerable thought to this issue. Feedback from
staff in these positions suggests that essentially all of the
"tasks" identified in the role descriptors are appropriate to the
role. Individual Consumer Law Advisors (CLA)
appear to have concluded that they will need to be undertaking
all aspects of the role description at all times. In fact, as is
stated in the current CLA
job description, "the exact duties of the appointee will be
detailed in their performance agreement", that is, in any given
year an advisor will be given certain key tasks or expectations
to focus on. This may apply to a focus on a particular community.
It may that a particular issue has been targeted for
consideration.
In addition, the proposed structure includes a "special
projects" fund (in the first year it is proposed that this would
be used for a fixed term project to develop the training trainers
approach with the CABx).
This fund will provide some flexibility to deal with work
pressures arising from particular "market events". If successful,
the training trainers approach also has the capacity to reduce
the workload of the Advisors, Consumer Issues. It is anticipated
that the Contact Centre will also reduce some of the existing
workload for this group.
In conclusion, we will proceed with the proposed reduction in
Consumer Law Advisors (Advisors, Consumer Issues) and manage the
workloads appropriately.
Specialist Research Expertise
With a few exceptions, very strong support has been expressed
for the development of a specialist research and evaluation
capability within the branch.
With respect to the
NUPE
proposals, it is my view that there are efficiencies that can be
achieved in the admin support and
CIS area. In
terms of prioritising the use of this resource, given our
strategic direction it makes sense to reprioritise these funds to
purchasing research and evaluative capability. It is my view that
having this capability will make the Advisor, Consumer Issues
roles more rewarding because the information they are collecting
and the research they are undertaking will be being put to good
use. My understanding is that the lack of a "receptacle" for this
information was at least part of the reason why previous attempts
to improve consumer issues monitoring was not particularly
successful.
With respect to the
NUPE
alternative proposal, it my view that this is not workable. To a
certain extent, all staff will be undertaking research whether it
is a policy analyst undertaking secondary research or a staff
member using his or her networks to obtain information about
consumer issues. However, experience across a number of different
government agencies has shown that if you do not "cordon-off"
your specialist research function, it is inevitably overtaken by
more pressing "urgent" issues. The day to day "urgent" tasks
crowd out the strategic activity. It is for this reason that I am
determined to create a separate research function. I have not
ruled out seeking additional funding to support this research.
Questions have been asked whether it is necessary to maintain
a specialist Research/Evaluation Advisor within the branch on a
permanent basis. My view is that in order to secure this
expertise at a price we are able to pay, we will need to offer a
permanent position. The wider
MED is
currently considering whether to establish a research and
evaluation "centre of excellence". Should this occur, it may be
that this position (not the funding) could transfer to the centre
of excellence at sometime in the future thus freeing up the
resource to be utilised in other ways.
Potential Overlap between Market Practice Advisors and
Capability Advisors Regarding Relationship Management with
Certain Stakeholder Groups
It was not the intention to say that only one position could
maintain a relationship with particular stakeholders. It is
expected that we will as an agency have multiple points of entrée
into certain stakeholder organisations at different levels.
However it will be necessary to establish who has the lead
responsibility for developing and maintaining certain
relationships. This will be dealt with through the development of
a relationship management strategy. This is one of the tasks of
the Senior Communications Advisor.
Moving from Two to One Māori
Projects Officer in Order to Free up Resource to Spend on Māori
Projects
Opinion and feedback varied considerably on this proposal from
those who were very supportive of the idea (as long as existing
projects such as that in Taitokerau continue) through to those
who were very concerned about the loss of Māori capability within
the branch. There seems to be some confusion over what is being
proposed and I will seek to clarify this now. Currently there are
two Māori Projects Officer positions. The accountabilities for
both positions are the same. The difference is that one focuses
on energy safety issues and the other on consumer issues. Both
salaries are funded out of Vote: Consumer Affairs.
Projects money for the ESS-based
position is funded out of third party levies. There is very
little projects money available for the
CIS-based
position. This has the potential to significantly impact on its
effectiveness. The proposal is to disestablish one of the
positions and use the salary from the other position to fund
additional projects. There would, therefore, be no decline in the
amount of total resource spent on improving the capability of
Māori communities to recognise consumer and energy safety issues
and risks and take appropriate action.
The NUPE
submission also makes the point that from the perspective of the
MCA
Kaiwhakarite Māori, that the conclusion of the Phase 1 Review
team that "nothing was broken" within
MCA and that
"it remains on the right track" was not true with respect to
Māori issues. The submission makes the point that
MCA is yet to
develop a framework that focuses on outcomes for Māori and Māori
development and is yet to develop a systematic approach to the
way its establishes relationships with Māori.
I have some sympathy for the position articulated by the
NUPE
submission. As part of the wider Ministry of Economic
Development, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Energy Safety
branch is participating in a whole of Ministry project aimed at
developing a strategy to support its outcome "Māori realise their
economic potential". The
MCA
Kaitakawaenga Māori is part of the core working group for this
project. This project will be focusing on, amongst other things,
a framework for thinking about
MED's
contribution to Māori economic development and a systematic
approach to the way it establishes relationships with Māori. The
Ministry of Consumer Affairs will continue to participate in this
project, and will look to use the framework developed through
this process.
After giving this issue considerable thought I have concluded
that the best strategy at this time is to retain the original
proposal in order to gain access to the projects money with one
change. As there will be one position, it is my view that it
needs to be at a sufficiently senior level to be able to
establish and maintain effective relationships with Māori at
senior levels and personnel at a senior level in the public
service. This position will therefore be described as Senior
Capability Advisor (Māori).
Measurement and Product Safety
Service
Significant support has been expressed for the new Team Leader
roles in the
MAPS team (after some initial debate around the concept)
and for the proposed budget bid to fund 4 additional
MAPS
officers. The primary discussion point during the feedback
regarding the
MAPS
team was the location of the Senior Advisor, Product Safety and
the name of the service. With respect to the name, it is my view
that having a name that conveys clearly the role of the service
is important. After weighing the pros and cons of name changes, I
have decided to proceed with a change to Measurement and Product
Safety.
Senior Advisor, Product Safety
Under the proposal in the
OIR, the
Senior Advisor, Product Safety position would be transferred to
the Policy Team. Concerns have been expressed that the head
office function is under-resourced and that the Advisor, Product
Safety, would not be able to deal with sensitive negotiations
with senior executives around voluntary action or intervention.
Decisions in this area have been difficult for two reasons.
First, it is plain that the Senior Advisor, Product Safety is,
due to her skill and experience, able to efficiently deal with
issues that may require more resourcing if others were to take on
the responsibilities. What is not entirely clear is how much more
and at what level. Second, under the proposed approach, the
MAPS
Team Leaders would pick up the responsibility for negotiating
voluntary action and/or intervention with traders, importers or
manufacturers of problematic products. It is anticipated that
these Team Leaders will have had significant experience
negotiating weights and measures issues with senior executives
and would be well placed to do this work.
It is also expected that
MAPS
officers would progressively take over responsibility for
developing or reviewing some product safety standards,
particularly those resulting from specific investigations carried
out by them. They would also undertake networking activities in
the regions (attending field days etc). However, the ability of
the regional
MAPS network to take on additional "head office" product
safety functions is to a large extent dependent the proposed
budget bid for 4 additional staff. The proposal is also very
dependent on the transfer of knowledge from the current Senior
Advisor to new and existing
MAPS
personnel.
For these reasons I intend to proceed with the proposal but
use a 10-month transition period. During this time the Senior
Advisor Product Safety would remain in the
MAPS
team and would:
- Assist the Manager,
MAPS
with the recruitment and selection of the Advisor, Product
Safety and fine-tune the consumer safety accountabilities of
the MAPS
network;
- Contribute to the development of the business case
supporting the bid for 4 new
MAPS
personnel including any adjustments necessary to take account
of new information;
- Work with key product safety personnel within the Energy
Safety Service to explore possible task sharing and
information sharing strategies;
- Provide in-depth training to the new Advisor, Product
Safety, the Team Leaders and
MAPS
officers on consumer safety issues;
- Complete the Consumer Safety Compliance manual, including
any additional material necessary to support work of the
regionally-based officers;
- Progressively hand-over responsibility for consumer safety
operational functions to the Advisor, Product Safety and other
designated members of the
MAPS
team.
Should the Budget bid be successful, the Senior Advisor will
move into an untagged Senior Advisor (Policy) position in the
policy team. Initially it is likely that due to their previous
experience, the new Senior Advisor would undertake strategic work
on consumer safety issues. Over time this would cease to be the
case.
Should the Budget bid be unsuccessful, the decision to move
the Senior Advisor would need to be reviewed. The activities
undertaken over the transition period would, however, be largely
necessary regardless of what arrangements are put in place.
Senior Communications Advisor
Position
Opinions on this topic were polarised. The majority of
feedback received on this topic was strongly supportive of the
move to reduce the number of branch communications positions to
one in order to gain efficiencies. However some very strong
concerns were expressed. In summary the key points made are that:
- Communications are an intrinsic part of
ESS's functions. It
is part of the way in which
ESS achieves its
core business.
- ESS
communications should parallel the approach to policy, that is
retain the position but amalgamate the communications
positions together in one unit.
- If the current ESS
Communications Advisor is not successful in her application
for the position, the network of contacts and energy industry
technical and legislative knowledge will be lost.
The proposed position is a Senior Communications Advisor (SCA)
with a focus on both energy safety and consumer issues. It is not
the intention to lose the energy safety focus. This will be part
of the accountabilities listed in the role description. It
remains my view that only one Communications resource is
necessary in a branch the size of the Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Energy Safety Branch, particularly with the newly
focussed information advisor positions also looking across the
whole branch.
With respect to the Senior Communications Advisor role, the
role description will make it plain that this role is part of a
Ministry of Economic Development-wide communications team
convened by the Director, Communications who has a leadership
authority for communications across the Ministry of Economic
Development as a whole. The
SCA will
attend the communication team meetings. This arrangement will
facilitate MCA/ESS
input into the Ministry-wide communications strategy and ensure
that the communications strategy developed for the
MCA/ESS
branch is aligned that of the parent ministry, while retaining a
specific focus on consumer and energy safety outcomes.
Reduce Admin Support Positions and
Centralise Head Office Positions
The proposal to centralise the head office Admin Support
Officers into a Branch Support Team, combined with removing the
0.2 FTE admin
support in the Christchurch office and reducing the admin support
in the Auckland office from 0.8
FTE to 0.5
FTE resulted in
strongly polarised opinions. Feedback was either strongly
supportive of the proposal or strongly negative.
On the positive side it was felt that centralising the head
office support staff and placing expectations on them to
cross-train would result in better quality, more flexible service
delivery. Support staff could cover for each other when
necessary. The provision of a consistent service would require
good systems and multi-skilling. Multi-skilling was seen largely
as a positive as it could lead to greater job satisfaction.
On the negative side, staff currently in administrative
support roles warned that a centralised approach would result in
a loss of service. Admin support people would not longer feel any
connection to a team and as a result would lose touch with the
team's issues. They would also be less inclined to "go the extra
mile" for someone who was not a team member. While multi-tasking
was seen as a positive, the potential for specialisation based on
a particular support person's skills or aptitudes could result in
boredom and loss of job satisfaction. Staff who currently have a
personal assistant role feel that the move to a centralised
approach will not only have a detrimental effect on the Manager
they work to, is a retrograde career step from their perspective.
NUPE
indicated the combination of centralising the admin support team
and reducing the numbers of staff could provide a health and
safety risk and that they would oppose such a move.
Support staff provided some useful points on what would need
to happen to make a centralised system work. These points
included:
- Each team should have a key contact support person who will
know the team's business and be kept informed of their needs
and plans;
- Locating support staff with teams could assist with this
(but associated down-side re sharing experiences across the
support team);
- Support people should be able to fulfil a
PA role if managers
require it;
- Regional support people should be managed by someone
on-site; and
- The need for assurance that staff workload would be
monitored and if it appeared that an additional support person
was required, this could be dealt with.
Comment
As noted above, centralising support staff under a common
manager can have some significant benefits. There are also some
risks that need to be managed, particularly the requirement to
monitor staff to ensure that workload pressures are not too great
and being prepared to take rapid action if this is in fact the
case.
I am proposing that we adopt the following approach, which
varies in some respects from that in the draft report.
Head Office
- Admin support staff in Head Office will reduce from five to
three positions as proposed in the draft report. The Admin
Support Team will report to the Strategic Business Advisor who
will essentially coordinate their work.
- Each admin support person will be assigned as a contact
person for a team on the following basis:
- 1 person for the Policy team and the
MAPS
team;
- 1 person for the Research, Information and Capability
team; and
- 1 person for ESS
Operations.
- Support people would be located with the teams that they
are servicing. They would attend team meetings and meet
regularly with team Managers to ascertain the level of work
required.
- Staff wanting support could go directly to their contact
person to request assistance or to the Strategic Business
Advisor. The onus would be on staff to be very clear in their
request to facilitate and appropriate response. The Admin
Support Team would then meet the support need as flexibly and
efficiently as possible.
- Managers would be able to negotiate for
PA services with the
Strategic Business Advisor.
The Strategic Business Advisor would monitor team workloads
and provide feedback to the General Manager on any changes
necessary to address workload or other concerns.
Regional Offices
It became very apparent during the feedback sessions in the
Manukau office that the support person provides an critical
service in terms of managing incoming Pacific Island hotline
calls including deal with many of the less complex inquiries
directly. With the Auckland Advisors, Consumer Issues reducing
from three to two it will be important to have someone dealing
with the incoming calls and requests for assistance. As a result
I propose that the support staff quotient in the Manukau office
be adjusted back to the original 0.8
FTE. The admin
support person would report to the most senior Advisor, Consumer
Issues.
With respect to the Southern Business Centre, I have arranged
with the Group Manager, Business Registries, that the
MCA and
ESS staff will be
supported through the Centre support staff.
Contact Centre
The draft report proposed that the entire
MCA/ESS
branch move to using the Southern Business Centre, Contact Centre
for all non-complex email and telephone traffic with the
exception of the hotlines. The rationale is to free-up staff as
much as possible to focus on higher priority tasks. It would also
provide an excellent source of information about calls taken. The
proposal was to start with the Research, Information and
Capability Team and then phase in the remainder of the business.
Reaction from staff through the feedback and submission
process was generally positive, though some expressed some doubts
at the level of calls and emails that would be able to be dealt
with without referring them on to Advisors, Consumer Issues.
Since 10 July 2003, the Contact Centre Manager has undertaken
some work to ascertain what would be required to action the
proposal to facilitate a final decision in this area. The
proposed action plan has been informed by discussions with
CIS staff.
Comment
It is recommended that filtering of specific inbound emails
and phone calls to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the
Energy Safety Service by the Contact Centre commence from 1
November 2003. The General Manager,
MCA and the
Group Manager, Business Registries will sign off the action plan
and service level agreement for the first phase of this process
by 29 August 2003.
Branch Systems and Processes
Where submissions focussed on the comments and proposals made
in this part of the report they were generally positive. One
submission, which was very supportive of the proposals put
forward, asked that the comment in paragraph 35 be amended to say
that "policy project teams should comprise policy and operations
staff and the evaluation advisor where appropriate".
This is a good point and the text has been amended to reflect it.
Not all policy projects will require operational input nor will
all operational projects require evaluative or policy input. The
important thing is to consult early with colleagues to ascertain
whether they are interested in being involved.
The point was also made that while the idea in paragraph 34
that each team member has a responsibility to understand their
colleagues' work was good, it was unclear how to make this a
reality. The text of the report has been amended to suggest a
number of ways including peer reviewing colleague's work,
presenting team seminars or simply discussing work-related issues
over coffee. It need not be a burdensome responsibility, but it
does require some proactivity.
Proposed Branch Structure
The majority of submissions were supportive of the new
structure, though as mentioned above, some suggested that care
would need to be taken to ensure that silos did not develop
between policy and operational areas and between the sub-teams
within the Research, Information and Capability team. Some
submissions suggested that the intention behind the establishment
of the research and evaluation capability in the Research,
Information and Capability team could have been achieved through
simply adding research functions to existing jobs. As noted
earlier, it is my view that we need to both make the most of the
information that we can glean through our various networks, but
we also need to "ring-fence" some resource to undertake more
detailed qualitative and quantitative work.
Having considered the feedback and submissions provided, I am
proposing to go forward with the structure largely as presented
in the draft report. The only changes in the organisation chart
listed below from that in the draft report are that:
- All policy staff are referred to by the generic title of
advisor rather than analyst.
- With the exception of the Energy Safety policy staff, none
of the policy positions will be tagged as this tends to place
limitations on the type of work the individual can undertake.
- There will be a 10 month transition period between the
implementation date and the transfer of the Senior Product
Safety Advisor resource to the Policy Team to allow for
building up the competency of the
MAPS
team in the product safety area. If the Budget bid is not
successful, the decision to transfer this resource will be
reviewed.
- The Capability Advisor (Māori) will be a senior position.
- The admin support person in the Manukau office will report
to the Manager, Research, Information and Capability Building
rather than the Strategic Business Advisor.
- The Market Intelligence Group has been renamed the
Research, Information and Capability Group and the Market
Practice Officers title changed to Advisor, Consumer Issues.
- One of the Advisor, Consumer Issues positions will be based
in Christchurch.
Energy Safety Service
Concerns were expressed by the
PSA on behalf of
its ESS members that
the fact-finding stage during Phase Two did not extend beyond the
Operations Manager. In fact discussions were had with the Senior
Advisor, Energy Policy, and the Communications Advisor (as part
of a branch wide group focusing on information issues).
ESS support staff also
contributed to fact-finding around administrative support
functions. It is accepted that further discussions could have
been undertaken with other
ESS staff.
With respect to the comment that the transfer of the
ESS policy team into
the wider branch policy team contradicts the statement that
ESS is not part of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, I disagree.
ESS and
MCA are part of
the same branch. They share the same General Manager. The Chief
Executive has a clear expectation of me that I will organise the
branch in the most efficient and effective manner I can to
support the branch and
MED-wide
objectives. In determining not to replace the position of
Manager, Standards and Safety, I was faced a decision on the
location of the energy safety policy function which used to
report to that position. I have decided that it is not desirable
for the ESS policy
team to work to myself. At this time I do not believe it is
feasible for the policy team to report to the current operations
Manager. However, in the medium term (and depending on what
happens with the Building Policy Review) it may be feasible to
look at this option again.
With respect to the Senior Capability Advisor (Māori), the
Senior Communications Advisor, and the Information Advisor
positions, these are branch positions, not
MCA or
ESS positions. The
Senior Capability Advisor (Māori) will be focussing on both
energy safety and consumer issues. With respect to the
Communications and Information Advisor positions, it is my hope
that a service level agreement is not necessary to gain access to
these resources.
Previous Page
/ Table of Contents /
Next Page
 |
![[To this page's content]](../../../images/transparent.gif){kind=small}
