On this page:

Efficient Government Fund EGF)1)2)052 Lanarkshire Workforce Training

DescriptionProject which aims to provide better outcomes from, and inputs to, workforce training.
ISBN (Web Only)
Official Print Publication Date
Website Publication DateNovember 30, 2005

Listen

This document is also available in pdf format (204k)

EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT FUND

Stage 1 application - expression of interest

Part 1: Summary Table

Bid Number (for EG Use)

Lead Bidder

South Lanarkshire Council (On behalf of the Clyde Valley Authorities)

Contact: Gill Bhatti

Employee Development and Diversity Manager

Tele: 01698 455604

e-mail: gill.bhatti@southlanarkshire.gov.uk

Brief description of the aims of the project

The overall aim of this project is to provide better outcomes from and inputs to workforce training within the Clyde Valley Authorities. This will lead to savings in cost and time which can be re-directed. To achieve this, the subsidiary objectives are:

  • Develop new consortium arrangements for:
  • Commissioning
  • Developing
  • Delivering and
  • Assessing Workforce Training
  • Establish opportunities for standardising training for local government employees
  • Encourage sharing of Best Practice

Clear description of what the EGF money would be used to buy

It is anticipated that the Efficient Government Fund money will be used to implement collaborative approaches to workforce training and development across the Clyde Valley and provide a model which can be extended across Scotland. In order to achieve the anticipated savings in cost / time, the Efficient Government Fund money will be allocated over four years as follows:

* Note 1 - Staff Time - development costs are not constant across the 4 years of the project, but incremental, reaching a total of £720, 000. Beyond year 4, the establishment of the new way working is expected to release savings which will meet any ongoing project requirements.

  • Staff Time

£720, 000 (4 secondees x 4 years)
* see note 1

  • Consultancy Support

£ 60, 000

  • Software Development

£200, 000 (To support 'e' learning methods)

  • Building Refurbishment

£ 55, 000 (To support 'e' installation of broadband)

  • Training (Project Team)

£ 15, 000

  • Re-training

£ 75, 000

£1, 125, 000

* Note 1 - Staff Time - development costs are not constant across the 4 years of the project, but incremental, reaching a total of £720, 000. Beyond year 4, the establishment of the new way working is expected to release savings which will meet any ongoing project requirements.

Partners to the project likely to commit resources

East Dunbartonshire Council

East Renfrewshire Council

Glasgow City Council

Inverclyde Council

North Lanarkshire Council

Renfrewshire Council

South Lanarkshire Council

West Dunbartonshire Council

Names of other organisations with whom the project has been discussed (to assist the introductions process)

Brief discussions have taken place with:

  • Aberdeen City Council
  • Aberdeenshire Council
  • John Arthur, Fife Council
  • Scottish Executive
  • Local Government Improvement Service
  • Jonathan Evans, Employers Organisation
  • Richard Wheater, CoSLA
  • Chartered Institute of Purchasing

Evidence that suggested approach has been deployed successfully elsewhere

Although the Clyde Valley Chief Executives Forum has been in existence for some time, the training and development group is a new consortium in terms of the bid. However, there is evidence from a range of sources that joined up approaches to commissioning, developing, delivering and assessing training leads to savings in both cost and time.

In a budget of £33,465,000 across the Clyde Valley authorities, projected savings are significant.

Examples of joint approaches include:

  1. Development of 'e' learning package to support introduction of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act ( FOISA). Fifteen authorities bought into this approach leading to a reduction in development time, delivery time and achieving an estimated cost reduction of £193,292 through joint commissioning and development. This is calculated on the basis of £2 per licence per employee in scope. The actual total cost of the development was £18, 000 for the 15 participating authorities.
  2. The 12 authorities of the 20-year-old West of Scotland Consortium pool resources to provide placements for trainee Social Workers and training for Mental Health Officers. This is a good example of joining up to achieve critical mass which makes provision of training viable.
  3. In Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire Council provides I.T. training to North Lanarkshire Council and East Renfrewshire Council employees at a unit cost of £65 per person per day. This is a more favourable rate than buying in from the private sector, currently estimated at £150 per person per day.
  4. A national consortium exists for specific training for head teachers - The Scottish Qualification for Headship - where the consortium has established a set price (£1250 per module) for this particular national qualification

Are there any restrictions to potential for enlargement of the project ( i.e. technology, number of partners etc)

None identified at this stage.

Indeed the Clyde Valley Forum would want to explore application of the proposal across Scottish local authorities and welcomes discussions with like-minded consortia such as the Fife (East of Scotland) bid. In addition there may be scope for engaging with authorities leading on procurement as this is a key element of commissioning.

Some discussion has taken place with the East of Scotland Learning Network, through Fife Council. There are some clear similarities in the work under review in terms of training. It may be appropriate for the Clyde Valley to undertake exploratory work in terms of efficiency which could be extended to the East of Scotland authorities. This collaboration will also be helpful in both procurement and economies of scale. It is also intended to take this to the Society of Personnel Directors Scotland ( SPDS) with a view to exploring a Scotland wide approach.

Benefits projected from the project

The total budget allocated to workforce training across the eight authorities is £33,465,000 (gross). For breakdown see narrative section.

The qualitative anticipated benefits are:

  • Erase duplication of effort in commissioning, developing, delivering and assessing workforce training
  • Establishing common governance arrangements for workforce training
  • Greater consistency of quality of training provision across authorities by agreeing quality monitoring arrangements
  • Economies of scale in procurement by jointly commissioning
  • Attaining critical volume for training for smaller authorities and for minority subjects e.g. drama teaching

The qualitative anticipated benefits depend upon the nature of the training intervention. However, reduction in unit costs for training days (currently around £179 per day) or annual cost of training per employee (currently £219) are anticipated year on year, based upon current spend

Estimated Financial projections

(Please treat these figures as indicative only)

Total

2005 / 6

2006 / 7

2007 / 8

2008 / 9

Overall project cost

£1, 125, 000

£255, 000

£210, 000

£330, 000

£330, 000

Project costs are geared towards year 1 and 2 when development costs may be greatest. Costs of staff re-training are weighted towards years 3 and 4. For a breakdown of yearly costs see section 2.

Estimated projected benefits (Gross)

*£1, 968, 010

£ nil

£669, 300

£655, 914

£642, 796

Estimated project benefits (Net)*£1, 418, 331£ nil£482, 360£472, 713£463, 259

*Total training costs across the Clyde Valley are approximately £33, 465 000 (Net training costs £24, 118,000) - estimated projected benefits are based upon 2% savings in cash and time year on year.

Is a pilot required - see guidance notes

No, this bid includes a request for Stage 2 development money which will be used to develop models of joint working which are fit for purpose. Those which meet our objectives will be those with a 'lean' approach which demonstrate additionality

Additionally: why is EG funding required

Initial responses from partner authorities are very encouraging - there is a will to work better together. However, investment is required to devote to this project to implement specific changes in the way we deliver training which can lead to evidence based, measurable outcomes.

Is this project complementary in any way to other EG work

This project is a good example of like minded employers seeking to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the broad area of workforce training and development, through leaner partnership approaches.

In addition, it reflects one of the priority areas for the Efficient Government initiative, namely support service reform. This project will undoubtedly stimulate significant changes in delivery of this important function.

Efforts have been made to ensure no duplication of effort with other bids, especially those involving procurement within Clyde Valley.

Is 'stage 2 development funding' requested

Stage 2 Development funding is requested to the value of £100, 000. As part of the preparation for the bid, a significant amount of data has been generated. The development monies will be used to:

  • Engage an external consultant to work with the eight authorities on the detailed financial data required for Stage 2 bid process, leading to development of a robust project
  • Analyse existing data on distribution of training spend across activities.
  • Establish appropriate governance arrangements for the consortium.
  • Facilitate some innovative, radical partnership working within the Clyde Valley such as single SVQ centres for specific qualifications for employee groups. Some benchmarking work has been undertaken in relation to vocational qualifications for Social Care staff.
  • Testing of ways of working e.g. lead authorities for particular type of training provision
  • Sourcing 'e'-learning expertise to develop CD-roms or on-line learning options for consideration by the Clyde Valley Group

Apply current research by the Scottish Leadership Foundation and Improvement Service on aspects of public sector workforce development

Page updated: Tuesday, July 12, 2005