Posts Tagged ‘PACE’
The governance of the Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: SSHARKSS.
UPDATE ON PUBLIC INQUIRIES
Over the period 1990 to end Dec 2017, £639 million has been spent on 68 public inquiries. Amongst the best known are: Bloody Sunday, Chilcott, Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, Harold Shipman & Soham murders. Some issues are cost, delays and implementation of recommendations.
This was my attempt in 2016 to analyse the governance of this Inquiry in terms of SSHARKSS.
It seems to have gone quiet with this inquiry. The Chair would probably argue that they are making good progress and getting on with the job. It may also reflect concerns about other events like Grenfell, MeToo, Brexit and so on.
02112016. First written update on progress was published on 31102016. It included background, objectives, achievements and commitments.
30092016. An announcement that the Counsel (senior lawyer) to the inquiry had resigned. The Times also reports that the ex Chair wrote that there needs to be a full review of the Inquiry and basis and scale of the inquiry.
The Home Secretary rejected this view but announced two practical pilot projects – safe houses – on 11092016 on the Andrew Marr show.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is currently led by Professor Alexis Jay.
The Prime Minister recently queried the governance of large businesses. What about the governance of this inquiry?
Here are eight questions to ask (SSHARKSS).
Strategy.
What’s the end in mind and what are the priorities?
The IICSA seems to have three purposes:
- Catharsis;
- Prosecution; and
- Stopping abuse in the future?
But what are the priorities between them?
If it is stopping future abuse, do you really need to try to uncover all historic abuse first?
Surely not?
Structure.
Does it have the right skills and roles?
It has had four chairs in two years.
A wide range of skills are needed such as leadership, management, legal, administrative, IT, child, institutions, evidence and case management.
Technically the inquiry looks like a “portfolio” of projects but there seems to be no mention of project skills.
It is unclear how various leadership roles fit together under the Chair.
Happen.
It has massive scope – all instances of abuse in living memory in all institutions in England and Wales.
Is that do-able?
What’s actually happening in performance?
It is difficult to tell. It has c200 staff but little has been reported.
Actions.
Do its actions combine engagement and discipline?
There are no published deadlines, not even for emerging findings.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
In my experience, no project (and the inquiry is a collection “a portfolio” of multiple projects) can really work without deadlines.
An internal review of its approach to investigations was announced by the new chair.
Resilience.
Are risks understood and actively managed?
The appointment risks didn’t appear to be.
If, as some argue, it has been an establishment conspiracy, then it is difficult to appoint figures from the establishment.
Ki. Does it comply with the spirit, and letter of good practice, transparency and integrity?
On the one hand, victims’ memories will fade of the details of historical abuse.
On the other hand, some people will be mistaken.
Is it fair not to allow cross examination by representatives of the accused?
Sustainability.
Are there biased incentives?
People paid by the day have little incentive to speed things up.
Fantasists may hope for damages.
Establishment offenders want to cover things up.
Stakeholders.
Can it retain any credibility with victims?
Those convinced of a wide ranging establishment cover up are likely to see the delays and problems as part of that, rather than due to bad luck, mismanagement or flawed policy.
Civil servants, many seconded from the Home Office are also likely (unfairly) to be seen in that light.
Images. Jumping to conclusions. The elephant (in the room?) is too big to grasp.
Please feel free to comment on this post or to contact me here:
Are you always fire fighting? Are you a FARO? What can you do about it?
Fire fighting should be left to fire fighters
” Most managers spend a great deal of time thinking about what they plan to do, but relatively little time thinking about what they plan not to do.
As a result, they become so caught up in fighting the fires of the moment that they cannot really attend to the long-term threats and risks facing the organisation.”
Dov Frohman, “Leadership the Hard Way: Why leadership can’t be taught -And how you can learn it anyway.”
Quoted by Tom Peters in “The speed trap: when taking your time (really) matters. 2018
I have worked with many organisations that fire fight.
There’s lots of action but little achievement.
I call them FAROs – Fire. Aim. Ready. Organisations.
Here are common symptoms and possible solutions, from my experience.
Typical symptoms of firefighting organisation (“SUIT“)
Shooting crocodiles with a shotgun.
This makes much noise but doesn’t kill them.
The key of course is to drain the swamp.
Everything is Urgent.
Nothing is planned or anticipated; it’s all reactive crisis management.
Initiative overload.
There are lots of initiatives and action plans, but nothing is completed.
Top top team triviality.
Little time is spent on priorities, key problems and opportunities.
Some possible solutions and relevant #MartialArtsPrinciples
Delivery #PracticeProperly
- Follow the ingredients of project success (think NOAH!).
- Develop a purposeful portfolio, not a project muddle.
- Get your basic processes right.
Strategy #KnowtheScore
Leadership #Focus
- Channel talents, efforts and resources at what matters.
- Put time aside to transfer skills and be pro-active.
Tom Peters
Tom Peters argues powerfully in the Speed Trap that many key activities, like relationships, culture, listening, design, people, simply take time.
They may be perceived as being “soft” but they are really “hard” to achieve.
Picture by National Dakota Training from The National Guard’s photostream
Please feel free contact me, to discuss or comment this post. You can contact me here:
Mike Barnato 