“There has been a great deal of managed change in the civil service since the last Machinery of Government review, and from the beginning of 2011 that pace has accelerated. The drive for efficiency, corporate delivery and accountability is at the heart of these changes. It is clear that change has happened, whether this has led to more efficiency, corporate delivery and accountability is debatable, and as I stated during the GSP debate, the change management process has left a lot to be desired, which has been particularly evident in the FTP and SAP implementations. My concern is that centralization is all well and good, but this brings with it a greater need for transparency in terms of responsibilities and accountability in relation to outcomes and I will elaborate on this further in a minute. Since the Requete was signed we have debated the Government Service Plan and Strategic Asset Management Plan. It was clear from both debates and the successful amendments that many in this Assembly shared the concerns about the accountability and political oversight of proposed committees of civil servants tasked with taking forward each plan. Not only that, but the SAMP had it not been amended, would have resulted in a relocation of the chief officers without proper consideration of what the impact would be operationally and politically. I believe that life has moved on since the requete was placed and therefore welcome this amendment placed by Deputy St Pier, which I believe sets the right direction on where we need to go from here. I won’t go through each one of the propositions but would like to comment on the one that I am pleased is retained in substantial form from that in the requete and is the reason why I signed it back in May. Proposition 6 directs that, where appropriate, there should be internal service level agreements within the States of Guernsey, including in respect of services provided by the Shared Transaction Service Centre (“the Hub”), in order to provide for clear definition of responsibilities and clear lines of accountability. Service level agreements have been defined as the means by which two parties communicate to each other their commitments in relation to the resourcing and provision of services to a given level, over a given period. So what does that mean in practice? Well, here I set out the purpose of the service level agreement in place between the Johns Hopkins Accounts Payable Shared Service Center and its customers. It states that the SLA will:
- outline services to be offered and working assumptions between the Shared Service Center and its customers;
- quantify and measure service level expectations;
- outline the potential methods used to measure the quality of service provided;
- define mutual requirements and expectations for critical processes and overall performance;
- strengthen communication between shared service providers and its customers;
- provide a vehicle for resolving conflicts.