Standard Improvement Process vs LGC Process

The process that the Local Government Commission (LGC) has used to get us to where we are in relation to amalgamation is very different compared with a standard improvement process.

Open and transparent

There is an expectancy that the process adopted and undertaken will be open and transparent.

The LGC website states "It must enable democratic local decision-making by and on behalf of communities."

Democratic local decision-making implies openness, transparency and true participation.

Compare Processes

Comparison list of Standard Improvement Process and LGC Process

Standard Improvement Process	LGC Process
Understand problems Canvass problems from wide range of stakeholders to get clear understanding of the precise problems. Summarise Collate and summarise the problems down to concise problem statements. Agree & sign off The problem statements are agreed by stakeholders and signed off for confirmation. Measure performance There may be a choice to do some baseline measurement for subsequent comparison. Set change targets The required level of change is set. It could be a 5%, 25%, 100% improvement required. The target will strongly affect the approach and solution. Determine approach Understand the gap between the problems and desired end state and then work out the best approach using standard tools like SWOT analysis, PESTLE analysis, scenario planning to determine the solutions and validate the process. Set structures/actions Document the proposed solutions - structures, tasks, actions etc. Link back to problems Link the proposed solutions back to the documented problems so their likely effectiveness can be assessed and that the solutions will in fact address the problems.	Change requested Assert that the Councils requested change following the rejection of the Supercity proposal. Consultation Consult with the councils, their CEOs, mayors and councillors in private, public not party to these meetings. Present Options to Public Present a range of solutions to the public for consultation. To questioning "what is the problem?", deny there are problems only opportunities. Record Questions Record questions from the "consultations" and report those questions in subsequent consultation reports/summaries. Fail to supply answers to the questions. Re-present options Having taken on board the feedback and suggestions from the first round of "consultation", re-present the options. Seek feedback Provide a feedback form (not submissions) and undertake a telephone survey to gauge support for the options. Publish results Announce the results on the LGC website (PDF) and for printing in local newspapers.

Standard Improvement Process

LGC Process

Understand problems

Canvass problems from wide range of stakeholders to get clear understanding of the precise problems.

Summarise

Collate and summarise the problems down to concise problem statements.

Agree & sign off

The problem statements are agreed by stakeholders and signed off for confirmation.

Measure performance

There may be a choice to do some baseline measurement for subsequent comparison.

Set change targets

The required level of change is set. It could be a 5%, 25%, 100% improvement required. The target will strongly affect the approach and solution.

Determine approach

Understand the gap between the problems and desired end state and then work out the best approach using standard tools like SWOT analysis, PESTLE analysis, scenario planning to determine the solutions and validate the process.

Set structures/actions

Document the proposed solutions - structures, tasks, actions etc.

Link back to problems

Link the proposed solutions back to the documented problems so their likely effectiveness can be assessed and that the solutions will in fact address the problems.

Change requested

Assert that the Councils requested change following the rejection of the Supercity proposal.

Consultation

Consult with the councils, their CEOs, mayors and councillors in private, public not party to these meetings.

Present Options to Public

Present a range of solutions to the public for consultation. To questioning "what is the problem?", deny there are problems only opportunities.

Record Questions

Record questions from the "consultations" and report those questions in subsequent consultation reports/summaries. Fail to supply answers to the questions.

Re-present options

Having taken on board the feedback and suggestions from the first round of "consultation", re-present the options.

Seek feedback

Provide a feedback form (not submissions) and undertake a telephone survey to gauge support for the options.

Publish results

Announce the results on the LGC website (PDF) and for printing in local newspapers.

How can we assess the potential effectiveness of the LGC proposals?

No problem statement/s. How do we know what's broken or "what the opportunities are" if you prefer that phrase?
How significant are the problems? What is the impact of these issues? And not just anecdotally, without agreement.
Are there any baseline measures? In the future, how will will know if there was change, by how much and in the right direction?
What tools did the LGC use? How simple or sophisticated was their modelling, projections, analysis? Where are their workings?
Where is the linkage back from each option to the problems that the solution addresses? (Hint: without problem definition this critical step can't happen)
How will measurement be completed to assess whether the amalgamation did in fact make the projected difference? (Hint: without an agreed baseline and agreed targets this can't happen.)

Conclusion

The LGC process has little resemblance to a rigorous improvement process.

The failure starts at the beginning where the omission of the agreed problem/opportunity statements means the subsequent steps are near meaningless.

American statistician John Tukey had this to say "An approximate answer to the right problem is worth a good deal more than an exact answer to an approximate problem."

The LGC have given us five exact answers, options B through F, but an exact problem would have had way more utility.