Blueprint Programme

Overview ‘to be’ design

20 May 2009

• Government expectation that research will help UK out of recession

• Expectations that the Research Councils will play our part

• Budget included requirement to re-invest internal savings by RCs into research

• Government policy statement explicitly refers to RC changes to grant applications to require ‘economic impact’ plans

‘Building Britain’s Future’

Our Vision is to maximise the impact of our knowledge, skills, facilities and resources for the benefit of the UK and its people.

• Ensure all our activities deliver maximum impact

• Support world leading research that is both application-led and curiosity-driven.

• Inspire more young people to study STEM

• Maximise international reputation

• Promote and explain the impact of our research

STFC Strategy

Focus - IMPACT

Economic recoveryEnergyEnvironmental

changeGlobal securityAgeingFuture Service Ind.

Challenges for UK

Collaboration

STFC Organisation

Cross-organisation roles and responsibilitiesMeasures of successPrioritisation of resource allocationDecision making processesLeadership and behaviours

Need to change…

RCUKAcademicsIndustryDisciplinesSectors

New roles - ??

Roles established – Campuses and Economic Impact

‘To be’ – change in focus

Blueprint projects will deliver:

• Strong and clear leadership

• New measures of success

• Allocation of resources to priorities

• Fit for purpose organisational structure

• Agile and effective processes

• Service oriented support infrastructure

• Positive and collaborative culture

• Capability to deliver successful change

Blueprint Objectives

Blueprint is important because more streamlined and effective organisation will:

• Boost stakeholder confidence in STFC, thereby

• Increasing the effectiveness of our bids for new investment in science and technology, so that we can

• Deliver more impact for the UK and the lives of people

Blueprint

Progress to date• Define programme – Operations Board Champions – September/October 2008• Establish Programme Management – October/November 2008• Mobilise development teams – December 2008• Quick wins – from early 2009 – e.g. senior staff conference• Principles and outline Blueprint design – January 2009• Senior Staff Conference Carousel – February 2009• STFC “to be” outline design – February to April 2009• CEO and Operations Board walkthrough – April/May 2009

Agreed ‘to be’ outline design – May 2009

LeadershipPast

What we had

• Not articulating a clear vision of what STFC is for

• Communicate pessimism and worry about financial situation

• Management operating as a set of individuals who protect their turf

• Discussion can be used to avoid decisions

• Invisible managers

• Articulate a clear vision of what STFC is for

• Communicate a vision of the future, tempered by reality of tough times ahead

• Management operating as a team

• Discussion used to help make decisions

• Visible managers

TO

DA

Y

PresentWhat we have

Future‘To be’

New

Vis

ion

D

ocu

men

t

Strategy Process

ManagementTraining

StrengthsFinder

Communication

Changebehaviour

ManagementTraining

• No agreed strategy for performance management within STFC

• Inconsistent approach to collecting data and measuring performance

• Unable to effectively measure performance against corporate strategy and priorities

• A performance management system is in place identifying targets at corporate level & allowing linkage to targets at both group and individual level

• The data collected is used effectively and justifies the effort required to collect and analyse it

• STFC will be able to understand performance levels, make adjustments & provide evidence to external stakeholders

TO

DA

Y

PastWhat we had

PresentWhat we have

Future‘To be’

Strategic PM Framework developed

‘As-is’ Data collection/reporting documented

Corporate Strategybeing developed

PM Frameworkagreed

PM SystemIn place

Corporate Strategyagreed

Performance Management

Financial Model

• Hybrid solution consolidating data from CCLRC and PPARC legacy systems

• Poor visibility of-cost drivers-contribution from external funding-commitments vs. discretionary spend

• No functionality to support scenario planning and “what-if” analysis

• Planning assumptions not recorded on the system and no KPIs or targets on system

• Integrated, system-based financial model to support dynamic planning and management

• Visibility of cost and income drivers for all STFC activities

• Consistent assessment of the financial impact of decisions – scenario planning

• Budgets aligned to strategy and delivery plan; prioritised spending and investment plans

TO

DA

Y

Workshop to clarify cost

model

Workshop on plan/budget/

forecast processes

Tender process with SSC to

engage consultants to deliver model on Hyperion

sofware

Workshop to define reports

and deliverables

Engage consultants, agree firm

requirement and project

plan

Workshops to identify and

elaborate key planning scenarios

Workshops on high-level

requirement and project

plan

Design, build, test, train, roll-out Hyperion

model.

PastWhat we had

PresentWhat we have

Future‘To be’

Organisational Structure

• Inconsistent structure inherited from CCLRC and PPARC

• Directors not treated consistently

• Lack of clarity about where responsibility lies for making decisions

• Too many committees with the same people on them leading to inefficient working

• Consistent structure across the whole organisation

• Empower all directors through attending operations board

• Keep support teams close to their customers

• Encourage working between all departments, as appropriate

TO

DA

Y

Decision toremove layer of business units Plan to

merge somedepartmentsKeep

distributed HR andfinance teams

Terms ofreference for

executive board

Only top levelboards to

be EB and OB

Createcross-department

czars

PastWhat we had

PresentWhat we have

Future‘To be’

Core ProcessesPast

What we hadPresent

What we haveFuture‘To be’

• Separate processes inherited from CCLRC & PPARC

• Lack of clarity in our decision making processes

• Lack of confidence in our evidence in decision making

• Lack of confidence in our delivery

• Stakeholder (External and Internal) Dissatisfaction

• Separate Governance arrangements

• Harmonised processes

• Visibility of our decision making process to all stakeholders

• Robust evidence

• Effective delivery

• Satisfied and engaged stakeholders

• Visible and coherent Governance Framework

TO

DA

Y

Advisory Structure in place

Documented and agreed processes

Senior Staff forum

feedback

5 Key decision scenarios agreed

Stakeholder communication

plan and processes

Governance Manual

Consultation

Pilot of the approach and deliverables

underway

Published and visible processes

Overarching STFC Mgt Statement &

Fin. memorandum

Infrastructure IT

Pre FFtF

• Tension between central IT and depts

• Inability to deliver

Post FFtF

• Devolution and governance gave significant improvement

Merger with PPARC

• Introduced new IT issues

• Highlighted problems with structure

• Clear process for making decisions

• Well-defined responsibilities and lines of communication

• Structure which can self-regulate and improve

• Effective processes for project and change management

• Integration of IT support across the organisation

TO

DA

Y

IT Forums

AgreedCommittee Structure

Draft committee structure

Proposedroles &

responsibilities

Agreedroles &

responsibilities

Common agreement on issues

IT Championon Ops Board

PastWhat we had

PresentWhat we have

Future‘To be’

6th March workshop bringing people

together

Key issues

Estates decisions made by the Departments because this is where the money is

Decision making and governance is a key barrier

Money for estates always ended up in science

The 3 yr funding system for estates is not practical

The existing Oversight Committee is not powerful enough

Clear process for estates decision making through a new governance structure

A well defined and consistent approach across all STFC sites

Longer term planning

Raised Estate profile

Better use of Estate and resources

Centralised electronic data

Enhanced ability to prepare for successful scientific bids

Key people consulted

with

A new Estates Governance

Structure

A new Asset Management

Plan

Database of bids and

Inventory of space and Equipment

Infrastructure EstatesPast

What we hadPresent

What we haveFuture‘To be’

• Blame culture

• Lack of Direction

• Org structure not optimal – where are decisions made?

• Invisible leaders

• Decisions are not made or carried forward

• Opaque decision making frameworks

• Perceived unfairness is one of the greatest sources of dissatisfaction

• Poor communications

• Ineffective reward systems

• Us and them attitude - culture work stream has highlighted that the same thoughts and feelings exist at all sites

• Staff taking responsibility and ownership

• Clear direction

• Clear structure and clear roles and responsibilities of Directors and boards

• Strong visible leaders

• Decisions are made and acted upon by all directors

• One set of policies and HR mechanisms for all staff at all sites

• Effective communications to receptive staff

• Effective reward systems and consequences for poor performance

• Proud to be part of STFC and recognise the strengths of other sites

TO

DA

Y

Director interviews

Results of workstreamcommunicated

to staff

Staff workshops

Senior staff conference

Key Values defined and communicated

to staff

Online questionnaire

Management recognising and backing the issues raised within

this workstream

Powerful advertising of culture change

programme

Powerful Leadership of Culture Change

Programme

Symbolic action

CulturePast

What we hadPresent

What we haveFuture‘To be’

Ad hoc:

• some change projects on the corporate register

• project management frameworks in place but no references to change project requirements

• a mix of training courses used

• trained staff not identified

• no centralised resources

• A complete list of change projects and initiatives in place, managed to minimise conflicts and pressure on staff, and to maximise benefits

• A consistent, best practice, approach to managing change projects in STFC.

• Staff and resources in place to support the projects

TO

DA

Y

draft Change Agenda

STFC and Department Change Agendas

draft Framework

Accredited training identified

STFC Change Project Framework

Change Leaders Identified

Change Leader job spec

Training courses set up

Web based resourcesin place

Building Change CapabilityPast

What we hadPresent

What we haveFuture‘To be’

Organisational change to support delivery of ‘impact’ strategy

• Rationalised top structure of Executive Board and Operations Board only

• New structures - with roles, responsibilities and authority limits – to be published on the web

Remove organisational layer of ‘Business Unit’

• All operations departments report directly to the Chief Operating Officer

• Some departmental mergers – more work on this with final decisions at next Operations Board

Director-level ‘czars’ to be named

• Responsibilities across STFC to focus on key challenges as they are defined – technology, innovation and for example health, energy, security, environment

•Decisions based on the RACI process, with a Decision Tree to show who is Responsible and Accountable and who needs to be Consulted and Informed

Decisions – 01 May 2009

• Improved decision-making processes for delivery of IT and Estates (subject to consultation) in progress

• STFC’s top three or four performance aims linked from strategy

• Executive Board started leadership coaching and will consider rolling out to Operations Board (OB)

• OB will use 360 degree feedback to judge themselves as leaders against the standards set in CRISTAL

• Senior Staff Conference in September/October to focus on implementation of the STFC strategy and ‘Czars’

Decisions – 01 May 2009

Directors will model acceptable behaviours and invite staff to provide feedback.

Behaviours to be encouraged and deemed to make most difference were defined at the Senior Staff Conference as:

• Collaboration, both internally and externally

• Leadership behaviours

• Visibility, leading by example

• Transparent, open, trusting

• Enthusiastic and nurturing

• Innovation and risk taking

• Responsibility, ownership, empowerment

• Science and Technology success

• Belief in STFC

Behaviours

Implementation – next steps

• Early implementation actions and prototypes – ongoing

• Communicate ‘to be’ and cascade to Departments – May/June 2009

• Mobilise/train implementation teams – June/Sept 2009

• across STFC

• within Departments

• Departmental ‘to be’ Blueprints – July to November 2009

• Prioritise implementation based on impact/benefits – November 2009