I have always struggled with the concept of telling people what they want to hear rather than what you perceive to be the truth. As a result I am sure that NWES has lost some business as I refuse to compromise just to gain a contract. Is this the right way to do business? Many will call me a fool however my personal beliefs are what drives the company and whilst I will never be highly popular by "telling it straight" I do hope that I am highly respected.
In business there are two ways to look at the gaining of customers - a short term, transactional approach or a long term relationship strategy. I prefer the latter which means having an honest and open relationship with the customer. Often this means telling them NOT to buy your product or service and sometimes even going to a competitor who may be better placed to deliver a solution to that particular need. In a percentage of cases you will lose the business completely - especially with those individuals who are uncomfortable with the bare honesty. However the majority will respect your candour and the relationship will be strengthened. If there is no trust then there is no long term relationship.
In working with new and existing businesses we strive to always be independant and impartial with our advice - our reputation is too important to us to compromise it with short term "quick fixes".
In my experience however in working with government and major corporates they often want to hear platitudes which reinforce their held view rather than alternative solutions. As I have said before process is more important that outcome in many such cases. This is why we have seen the amazing growth in some firms who win major government contracts and then underperform - usually without sanction. A good example is with New Deal where recent research has indicated that it cost over £30,000 for every new job created. Compare this to NWES where for 10% of that amount we set up new businesses which are proven to be more sustainable than average and who also employ others. Are we asked to the top table to explain how we can do this? No. The truth is someties unpalatable and uncomfortable when it does not sit within preconceived viewpoints.
I live in hope that one day honesty and values are as highly prized as profit.
Showing posts with label New Deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Deal. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, June 7, 2010
The new New Deal?
I attended a “meet the ministers” event in London for New Deal suppliers on 2 June 2010. The event was hosted by DWP with Chris Grayling and Lord Freud. In general the message was that there will be rapid changes and they want to build on the best but free providers to get on with the job. In the new scheme the government is looking to transform welfare to work and any new system will be providers paid on results – not for “inputs”. It is likely that there will be a single scheme instead of the myriad of special programmes currently seen and the volumes going through are likely to be much higher as claimants are moved from IB onto JSA.
The message was clear that this is not a rebranding but a radical transformation. The government is clear that intensive provision is not a role for government and should be provided by the private/third sector. It is likely that clients will come with different amounts attached to their heads with the “hardest to help” coming with the most money. Providers will then be free to deliver whatever is required to get these people into work. This could include confidence building etc along with direct work related activities. The government is clear that the idea is to get people into work and not a job i.e. as long as they are off the register that is fine and for instance they could become a temp moving from role to role rather than staying in one job. Providers will be paid on sustainable work so the claimant would have to be off the register for an agreed period e.g. 2/3 years.
This system means that providers need a strong capital base as payments could be 12 months+ down the line. By strong capital base the indication was “needing city help” i.e. £100m+. Companies will need scale and “rich” coalitions are encouraged with multiple disciplines aligned with good management, innovation and creativity. Changes will be made in days and weeks not months and we can expect to receive individual communication soon regarding what is happening to current provision and expect more details in 4-6 weeks on the new programme.
In answer to some questions:
- Is FND2 dropped? No decision today but preparation work will not be wasted
- What will be the geographical contracting areas? Not yet decided but hints as to FND1&2 areas. Not looking to shake up unnecessarily
- What is the role of the 3rd sector? Want to see 3rd sector involved at highest levels but capital may be a problem
- Will the risk be put down to the smaller players? It is the job of the prime contractor to fund the contract!!!
- What happens re the benefit trap? Claimants will be better off working with hints that 55% taper rate on benefits e.g. claimants will keep 55p of every £ earned.
- Is the government still committed to Work for Yourself? Yes!
All "good stuff" so far then and little to argue with. However as with any government programme the devil is in the detail and I do have some queries, concerns and questions which need to be answered. In particular:
- Safeguards that the small and medium sized members of the coalition will not be squeezed by the prime contractor - the "Tesco effect" - risk needs to be equally shared and not passed down to the end deliverer
- A maximum amount that prime contractors can "cream" from the contract
- Where contractors do not deliver then they cannot simply bid and win another contract without previous performance taken into account
- Weighting given to consortia including the third sector
- Work for Yourself kept as a separate contract as it is not about employment and needs a specialist approach
- Clarity over contract areas - not too big or local provision disappears and a lowest common denominator approach prevails
So we can all look forward to more detail coming soon and I am sure that we can expect some radical changes - I certainly hope so!
The message was clear that this is not a rebranding but a radical transformation. The government is clear that intensive provision is not a role for government and should be provided by the private/third sector. It is likely that clients will come with different amounts attached to their heads with the “hardest to help” coming with the most money. Providers will then be free to deliver whatever is required to get these people into work. This could include confidence building etc along with direct work related activities. The government is clear that the idea is to get people into work and not a job i.e. as long as they are off the register that is fine and for instance they could become a temp moving from role to role rather than staying in one job. Providers will be paid on sustainable work so the claimant would have to be off the register for an agreed period e.g. 2/3 years.
This system means that providers need a strong capital base as payments could be 12 months+ down the line. By strong capital base the indication was “needing city help” i.e. £100m+. Companies will need scale and “rich” coalitions are encouraged with multiple disciplines aligned with good management, innovation and creativity. Changes will be made in days and weeks not months and we can expect to receive individual communication soon regarding what is happening to current provision and expect more details in 4-6 weeks on the new programme.
In answer to some questions:
- Is FND2 dropped? No decision today but preparation work will not be wasted
- What will be the geographical contracting areas? Not yet decided but hints as to FND1&2 areas. Not looking to shake up unnecessarily
- What is the role of the 3rd sector? Want to see 3rd sector involved at highest levels but capital may be a problem
- Will the risk be put down to the smaller players? It is the job of the prime contractor to fund the contract!!!
- What happens re the benefit trap? Claimants will be better off working with hints that 55% taper rate on benefits e.g. claimants will keep 55p of every £ earned.
- Is the government still committed to Work for Yourself? Yes!
All "good stuff" so far then and little to argue with. However as with any government programme the devil is in the detail and I do have some queries, concerns and questions which need to be answered. In particular:
- Safeguards that the small and medium sized members of the coalition will not be squeezed by the prime contractor - the "Tesco effect" - risk needs to be equally shared and not passed down to the end deliverer
- A maximum amount that prime contractors can "cream" from the contract
- Where contractors do not deliver then they cannot simply bid and win another contract without previous performance taken into account
- Weighting given to consortia including the third sector
- Work for Yourself kept as a separate contract as it is not about employment and needs a specialist approach
- Clarity over contract areas - not too big or local provision disappears and a lowest common denominator approach prevails
So we can all look forward to more detail coming soon and I am sure that we can expect some radical changes - I certainly hope so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)