It is nice to have a response, of sorts, to my examination of BT’s influence on local government and Suffolk county council in particular.
The removed document is the entry for a BT marketing award by the Vital Vision programme. It reveals that it was essentially a sales and marketing programme designed to gain contracts by winning the hearts and minds of people in public services. More in my post: Has BT gained too much influence in local government?.
However, the entry document is available here.
Now, why would Suffolk County Council decide to outsource its HR work to a company which has concluded that someone else is better able to manage its own HR?
Answers in the comment box below, please.
The ditching of Suffolk’s New Strategic Direction last week by the new county council leader, Mark Bee, raises the question of whether BT has gained too much influence in local government.
One BT director, Max Wide, has played a central role in developing the Suffolk plan and another controversial and derided scheme to change the face of a local authority, Barnet’s easyCouncil scheme.
In both cases Wide, Director of Strategic Development at BT Government, was seconded to the councils as Director of Organisational Change.
In the words of Suffolk’s chief executive Andrea Hill when he was appointed last year, his job was to “develop a hard-nosed programme to implement the New Strategic Direction”. According to some sources he played a important part in developing the policy.
Two years earlier he had joined Barnet where the then Chief Executive, Leo Boland, welcomed Wide, saying he would help the council respond to changes. The change policy there gained the easyCouncil name because it was said to be similar to the easyJet business model.
Wide’s role at both Suffolk and Barnet is said to have been “pivotal”. He has also helped up to 60 authorities “deliver change programmes”.
Earlier this year Wide was a member of the panel which chose the Local Government Chronicle’s (LGC) 50 most influential people in local government, including himself at number 28.
The citation said: “Max Wide is best known for his pivotal involvement in two of the country’s most high profile council transformation programmes: so-called easyBarnet and Suffolk’s divestment strategy.”
Andrea Hill was at number five and Nick Walkley, now Barnet’s chief executive, at 18.
Wide’s selection was welcomed by Chris Ainslie, vice president BT Local, Regional and Devolved Government, who wrote on the LGC blog that “Max has spent 20 years at London Boroughs and has worked with 60 authorities to deliver change programmes.”
The similarity of the Barnet and Suffolk schemes was alluded to by Mark Bee last week when he told the East Anglian Daily Times: “The days of the council being a ‘light’ council, being an ‘easy’ council approach which I think underpins the New Strategic Direction, are over.”
BT embarked on a systematic marketing programme in 2002 to win the hearts and minds of the top people not only in local government, but in central government, the police, the NHS, the military and other public sector bodies.
Vital Vision takes such people to events at top American universities. A BT public sector brochure describes the programme as bringing together “a unique mix of senior Government decision-makers, BT research partners and leading academic institutions, including Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford and MIT. The objective is to explore current business thinking and look at how it can best be applied to Government. This process is enhanced by the quality of the participants and the genuinely stimulating, interactive environment they create together.”
A rather different story emerges from a document put together to support the Vital Vision team’s application for a BT internal marketing award (it got a commendation).
This document has the title: “Vital Vision. Creative thinking in the marketing approach and customer proposition.”
It says: “The programme supports BT Government’s long-term activities in building ‘relationships that count’ within the inner circle of senior civil servants – a circle many competitors find difficult to penetrate. The programme provides a platform for BTG’s sales activities with the largest contract opportunities across the UK.”
One of those large contracts was the Suffolk Consumer Services Direct 10-year deal worth £300m (since risen to more than £400m) which was awarded to BT by the County Council in 2004.
The following year Mike More, then the Suffolk Chief Executive (now with Westminster council and joint 19th in the LGC list), took part in the Vital Vision programme when he was targeted for a “mobile office” contract worth £50,000 to BT.
The 44 people taking part that year represented “organisations with a total opportunity value of £1.7bn”.
Andrew Foster, Director of Human Resources at the Department of Health, was being offered a £3m contract by a part of BT that helps organisations “change the way they work through the effective exploitation of technology”.
Norfolk council’s chief executive was being targeted for a £50,000 “mobile workforce” product while the county’s chief constable, Andy Hayman, who moved to the Met police that year, was being pursued for an outsourcing contract.
Business opportunities for BT, taken from a customer relations management database, are listed against each of the the participants.
When the kind of people “who will shape the views of others” are invited on to the Vital Vision programme, they are inducted by a personal in-depth interview where BT “determine the key issues with which they are grappling….
“We also explore the individual’s personality profile, learning profile and emotional intelligence to help us to determine the best method of delivery.”
The programme provides “a platform for BTG’s sales activities with the largest contract opportunities across the UK”.
The Vital Visionaries are invited to two week-long visits to top US universities where they attend sessions on such topics as “Leadership in the public sector”, “Competing on the edge: strategy and cultural chaos”, and “Engaging the citizen”.
The first visit is to Boston for MIT and Harvard and starts with a cruise and dinner. The second is to San Francisco where the events are at Stanford and Berkley. Again the programme looks tough but there is light relief with a trip on the Napa Valley Wine Train.
After a year on the programme, BT organises reunions to maintain contact.
The BT marketing document says: “Given the Public Sector rules on acceptance of hospitality and the reputation and benefits of the programme, clients pay their own flights and accommodation costs.” Suffolk’s chief constable, Simon Ash, claimed £2,750 expenses for attending the sessions in 2008.
But Andrea Hill was able to say in the staff newsletter in April this year: “So what about the two trips to America with BT, have they compromised my judgement? In 2008 I did go to both Boston and San Francisco, as part of a training programme sponsored by BT. So did 30 other public sector Chief Executives. So too did my predecessor a few years before me ,and so too have 4 other council Chief Executives or Chief Constables from Suffolk. Not a penny of my trip was funded by taxpayers – not the course, or flights, or hotels, or mileage, or meals, or even a cup of coffee.” (Source 4)
She does not actually say who paid her travel expenses but the implication is that BT made an exception from its rule in her case.
Vital Vision has also, according to the marketing document, “spawned ‘Envision’, aimed at one specific client to help them to implement their far reaching change management initiatives”.
That was written in 2005. But the placing of BT executives in change management jobs has continued with the secondment of Max Wide to Barnet and Suffolk councils.
Kevan Lim who was a Labour county councillor in Suffolk until 2009 is writing his blog again, after a few months off, and is strong voice. In a detailed post headed Is BT ripping off Suffolk? he goes through the history or procurement and scrutiny arrangements (or current lack of them) before concluding:
The County Council is about to start the biggest divestment of services in its history under the New Strategic Direction policy. Such a change will require greater control of contracts not less. The more external providers of services you have the greater the need to be regularly reviewing their services and making sure you are getting value for money.
The banking crisis was a perfect example of the National failure of regulation and scrutiny. Now the County Council is creating its own Suffolk Banking crisis.
As things stand the current County Council appears incapable of managing its external providers and that is a scary thought whilst the current leadership of the County Council remain which may cost us all.
It is worth reading it all to see how he reaches this conclusion.
Suffolk County Council owes it to council tax payers to be more open about its negotiations to cut £3.5 million from its bill for the Customer Services Direct joint venture with BT and Mid Suffolk District council.
This is a big part the overall cuts to services including care to the elderly, bus services, libraries and much more.
The whole CSD project is mired in controversy and last June Michael Gower resigned as head of supplier relationship management at the County Council. He later told the Guardian that his repeated complaints that the scheme was over budget were ignored by SCC chief executive Andrea Hill.
In 2004 the original contract was to set up CSD as a joint venture, with Suffolk paying BT £301m over ten years. BT was to invest £53 million in the council’s infrastructure. The costs, including inflation, have increased to £417m, said Gower.
The Guardian also reported, “… that Suffolk’s director of organisational change, Max Wide, is on secondment from BT where he is director of strategic development at BT Government. Wide was formerly director of organisational development at Barnet council, another Conservative authority with a radical privatisation programme.”
Ipswich Spy, a blog which seems to be close to some of the political animals in the town, returned to the issue yesterday with a post headed Who runs Suffolk County Concil? Andrea Hill. Jeremy Pembroke, or BT?
Jeremy Pembroke, is leader of SCC. Ipswichspy posed six questions to the council:
Ipswich Spy believes that the close relationship between BT and Andrea Hill needs careful and critical examination. Why has the relationship not been closely examined by the council’s Audit Committee for instance. They are meeting this week and the agenda would have been written whilst the relationship was under closest scrutiny. Yet they continue along a path set for them by the ruling trio of Chief Executive, BT and council leader Jeremy Pembroke. Are back bench councilors not concerned that BT appear to fill the roles of poacher, gamekeeper and owner of the farm at SCC?
I posted a comment pointing to a council document listing proposed spending cuts. It includes reducing the cost of the CSD contract by £3.5m (10.4%) but said it would be difficult to deliver, commenting: “Active discussions are taking place with CSD and BT. Currently there is no agreement and an understanding of how this could be delivered is yet to be finalised.”
Ipswich Spy responded (in part):
This looks to us like a holding figure used to balance the budget, without any real intention to find those savings….
Our concern is that SCC isn’t really looking at all. The figure put in the budget has no substance behind it, no explanation of how those savings are going to be made.
Please read Ipswichspy’s full post and the comments.
One of the most important questions surrounding the whole cuts issue is whether SCC is capable of managing a huge range of suppliers from the private and voluntary sectors. The evidence we have of the CSD contract casts severe doubt on that.
A £3.5m reduction in the CSD budget is a big part of the overall proposed cuts and if it is not delivered where does that leave the whole policy? Without full disclosure, claims that SCC’s New Strategic Direction has democracy at its heart look more pious by the day