Whole-of-government ICT career structure
The career pathway aims to support ICT employees in the APS with their career planning and capability development. The pathway will deliver a toolset, which will include:
- capability profiles
- self assessment tools
- career transition tools
- learning and development options.
The toolset will be available to all APS staff online.
The ICT career pathway will be released in late 2009.
Whole-of-government strategic ICT workforce plan
The strategic workforce plan will detail the current capacity and capability of the APS ICT workforce, identify the anticipated movement of these factors in the short to medium term, and also outline the shifts in capability and capacity required to help agencies effectively deliver Government priorities.
The strategic workforce plan will include strategies to address any capacity and capability gaps identified as a result of the strategic analysis, demand forecasting, and supply forecasting that is undertaken. Stakeholder inputs, including from agencies and APS employees will be an important source for strategy development. The workforce plan will also include whole-of-government strategies for the improved recruitment, retention and engagement of ICT personnel.
Equipping organisational leaders to harness the benefits of ICT
To promote a greater understanding of ICT issues at senior levels of agencies, a suite of information and educational opportunities will be established for non-ICT SES officers. These will include workshops, articles and specific organisational events for Leaders.
Whole-of-government tele-working policy for ICT staff
Australian Government agencies will be provided with a framework for establishing, implementing and maintaining a tele-working policy for ICT employees. The primary objective of the policy is to assist agencies with the attraction and retention of suitably skilled ICT professionals.
Sponsorship of annual awards
To raise the professionalism of ICT, the Government will sponsor annual awards to recognise outstanding professionalism in key ICT disciplines. The awards will be incorporated into established award programs and will be open to ICT professionals working in the APS.
Organizational Structure
A Flat organization (known as horizontal organization) refers to an organizational structure with few or no levels of intervening management between staff and managers. The idea is that well-trained workers will be more productive when they are more directly involved in the decision making process, rather than closely supervised by many layers of management.
|
|
|
This structure is generally possible only in smaller organizations or individual units within larger organizations. When they reach a critical size, organizations can retain a streamlined structure but cannot keep a completely flat manager-to-staff relationship without impacting productivity. Certain financial responsibilities may also require a more conventional structure. Some theorize that flat organizations become more traditionally hierarchical when they begin to be geared towards productivity.
The flat organization model promotes employee involvement through a decentralized decision making process. By elevating the level of responsibility of baseline employees, and by eliminating layers of middle management, comments and feedback reach all personnel involved in decisions more quickly. Expected response to customer feedback can thus become more rapid. Since the interaction between workers is more frequent, this organizational structure generally depends upon a much more personal relationship between workers and managers. Hence the structure can be more time-consuming to build than a traditional bureaucratic/hierarchical model.
In my submission, I would like to argue the case for a much flatter organisational structure within each department to promote innovation and to lessen the chance of ideas from the bottom being blocked or that ideas generated in the middle are blocked from the ultimate decision authorities near the top. Basically, the fewer levels that there are, the greater chance that new ideas will reach the top. This means the elimination of either the Division-level or Branch-level (or both) levels of hierarchy.
I would also like to propose that non-nuclear, science-related program management functions be performed by one organization, i.e. the Australian Research Council. This will free the departments themselves from performing mundane tasks like contract management and allow freer policy flow up and down the chain of command. It simply makes sense that one organization performs science/research-related program management emanating from the Commonwealth.
|
|
|
Specific recommendations that will result in more innovation (one premise being is that happier employees will be more likely to generate innovative ideas with reduced management layers):
1) Elimination of Division-level, Branch-level or both levels of management/organisation. There is no need to have such duplicate and arbitrary divisions. Larger sections will eliminate the need for a subunit above. Fewer levels mean fewer managers with little clear purpose and a shorter hierarchy for ideas to climb.
2) Reduction of section teams and increasing section team sizes. Section teams of five staff, sometimes with two or three EL1’s “supervising” the remaining APS5’s and 6’s is ridiculous and a waste of resources.
3) The numbers of “managers” vis a vis APS level staff should be reduced substantially including SES level managers. There becomes a conflict of resources when so many people feel that their role is to supervise staff rather than do actual work, or even doing both tasks can be onerous for managers. Some sections have more EL1’s than APS level staff, forcing EL1’s to some mundane tasks such as photocopying, event management, contract management, etc. This has created a very top heavy environment. How can innovative ideas flourish in this atmosphere?
4) Clearer role definitions. Roles such as “Policy Officer”, “Country Manager”, EL1, EL2, APS6, etc are simply too vague and fluid to be of any use. What do they mean? What do they actually do? Too often, these titles have no relevance or similarity to the role’s actual job duties.
5) Clearer objectives for all sub units within an organisation. There are many areas within the organisation their purpose is unclear. (i.e. poorly spelled out what they actually do). These areas should be considered to be merged with other areas with clearer roles. For example, a Division, a branch or a section should not exist if it is not absolutely clear and evident what it is that they will be doing, that they are needed and that they cannot be amalgamated within another division/branch/section. More line staff at the APS level will make amalgamations easier.
|
|
|
6) Related to clearer role definitions is the fact that roles are not conducive to creative thought or long term planning – they are strictly reactive (i.e. “get this brief done by tomorrow for the General Manager’s dinner”, “Work on this excel spreadsheet”, “Check the milestones of this contract”, etc) meaning that more roles should be afforded the real opportunity, ideally in their job descriptions and the person’s PDP, to engage in creative thought. The pedantic and process driven nature of government can be supplanted by more creative, objective-oriented process, i.e. “It’s not the process that matters as much as the destination/objective”). Too often the Public Service gets caught up in how things are done much, much more than what we are actually accomplishing (if anything).
7) Communication needs to be improved internally, not just with “stakeholders”. One huge prevalent problem in the Public Service is the existence of “silos” and very poor communication between sections, between branches, between divisions, between managers, between staff, from managers to staff and staff to managers, and even within sections!! There is no excuse why a section of five people is not aware of what is actually happening within that section. How can innovation occur in this scenario? Directors and EL1’s are hired based on their knowledge of programs and experience doing similar previous jobs, but no emphasis on their actual communication skills. How do they communicate to their teams? Are they explicit in their requests? There is specific testing that human resources department or the Public Service Commission can explore that should be incorporated into selection criteria and job interviews that can test for these sorts of communication skills. These should be uniformly applied throughout the Public Service as a standard test. It should be considered the most important aspect of any job application. Staff cannot work, let alone innovate, in “silos” of information, not aware of what is going on around them or of expectations. Training should emphasise communication as should PDP’s.
|
|
|
8) Job duties should be clearly, comprehensively and accurately explained at the interview stage, with no more than 10% of job duties attributable to “Other duties as Assigned”. This will encourage innovation in that people will not leave their job once they discover at a later stage that their job is actually what was explained to them, lessening staff movement and increasing job satisfaction. What is the point of having a job title or description at all if more than 50% of one’s job duties are “flexible”?
9) In line with the Gershon Review of the Public Service Commission, a uniform and standardized IT systems across the entire Public Service need to be implemented as per the Public Service Commission Review. IT systems also need to be more sophisticated and intuitive. Uniform and standardized pay structures. Uniform and standardized job descriptions and titles. Uniform and standardized organizational structures. Uniform and standardized policies, procedures, forms and templates.
Examples of Public Service policies/procedures needing standardization:
· Contract templates
· PDPs
· Travel
· Standards/selection criteria/Jobs
· Training and development
· Industrial relations
· OHS/workers compensation
· Word templates for briefs, ministerials, QTF’s should be the same across all departments and standardized internally, as well as kept up-to-date. (Not by each section – should be an IT centralised, automatic ability allowing for quicker updates and consistency).
· Contract management procedures. Reduce the over-reliance on contractors, not just IT-related either. Review the number of contracts that are active and seek to reduce them or move them to ARC or similar agencies to stimulate thought rather than implementation.
· Title of “Policy Officer” (for example) should actually do policy work across the entire public service, not just one section, branch, division, or department. i.e. Job descriptions/titles
· APS6 pay range should be the same in DIISR as it is at AIATSIS, for example.
· Databases should be more intuitive and functional, easy to use, understand and useful/practical, as well as standardized. IT help desks should be across MS Access or other database programs that can link with other databases or thee Internet.
· Access to up-to-date information for statistical purposes for databases, for example, can be standardized through an overarching library system for example.
10) An “Innovation Champion” is a good idea, but only if senior management are committed to implementing their ideas.
11) Senior Management should be judged in their performance agreements/contracts/reviews on the number and type of innovative ideas that they have both put forward and implemented.
12) A completely open and transparent recruitment, application, interview and referee process should exist including standard job application processes for both permanent and temporary jobs, “Expression of interest” jobs, transfers, and all jobs offered internally, which runs in sharp contrast with the current system. Too many people are not told why they were not selected for a job, why they were not selected for an interview, what their referees said, which causes resentment, career atrophy and poor morale throughout. This also strengthens the perception that managers just hire who they want and ignore the proper process. This hinders innovation.
13) PDP’s/Performance Plans – should have innovation in them as a yardstick for evaluating all employees, but particularly senior management. Communication needs to be emphasized in these plans for management especially. PDP’s are supposed to use standards and goals that are measurable, identifiable not vague and imprecise, which is the case currently. Why isn’t there a Public Service-wide policy and standard for all PDP’s? i.e. one PDP template with clear and measurable standards and yardsticks for the entire Public Service – this is something the Public Service Commission could easily do if allowed to and empowered to. Also who does the PDP should be clarified.
14) The prevalence of contracting out services should be reviewed in that this can mean losing control and encourages “bottom line” thinking, i.e. the contractor proposal with the lowest cost is often selected, meaning that innovative ideas that cost more can be lost. Contracts should have innovation built into them.
15) The Program Management/Contract Management function so prevalent in government can be given to one separate agency (in the case of DIISR) for all non-nuclear, science research-related programs. This will free up departmental resources for use on other things such as generating innovative ideas rather than monitoring funds and contracts. The Australian Research Council comes to mind as a useful science-related program manager, already the largest in Australia.
16) A single and empowered Human Resources department structure for the entire Public Service should exist in order to standardize and harmonize consistency in government internal policies. How can innovation occur when each department is run so differently and has different rules about pay, HR, job classifications, etc etc?
17) Training and Development/Career Development – the Public Service is too concerned with rising up a level and impressing one’s boss, not in innovation. Why not offer different career pathways to staff that are not happy in their areas? The lack of consistent training for new staff, as well as ongoing staff, and the issue of expectations on the part of staff and on the part of managers is an issue that continues to plague both sides of the dysfunctional equation.
18) A separate Branch, Division or section devoted solely to internal innovation might be considered. However, this has the important disadvantage of potential “siloing”, i.e. ideas being constrained by management to this area without going further, lack of information sharing which is very common currently.
19) An alternative to a separate “innovation” area internally might be to devote a “Chief Innovation Officer” with their own staff devoted to innovation, at the same level as the highest senior manager internally (i.e. Secretary or Deputy Secretary) with the proviso that all senior managers agree to implement innovative ideas to improve service delivery, improve policy generation, improve the quality of data internally, improve communication, etc. This should not be considered a political or “lip service” appointment/area with no real intention of change.
20) A “Whole of Government” meeting of all departments’ senior management should occur to discuss innovative ideas and how to implement them/standardize them throughout all of the Departments simultaneously and yet designed to improve procedures throughout all areas.
21) Both the Public Service Commission and the Prime Minister’s Office should be involved in any across the board Public Service discussions on innovation. I noticed at the MAC focus group meeting there were perhaps four or five departments represented there with no senior management. I wonder if this is truly effective consultation. All Departments should be required to make submissions, including the Prime Minister’s office and the PSC. I believe that real change should emanate from the top downward in order to facilitate change from the bottom up. Only then can “bottom up” change exist. I also notice that the CPSU was not invited to these consultations?
22) A single overarching Collective Agreement should be negotiated covering all departments. If need be, special collective agreements can cover special occupations, but not separate departments.
23) The Public Service Commission should be empowered to make overarching policies that the entire public service can rely on, such as industrial relations, rather than continuing this fragmented, confused system. This will help departments searching for policy direction go to a single source confident of its authority. The Public Service Commission otherwise need not exist. The PSC could be a powerful force to unify the Public Service and provide much-needed overall direction which will lead to more innovation internally. Consistency is badly needed in the Public Service, thus reducing confusion and enabling innovation. Instead, it is being used to provide training only “as requested occasionally” on certain subjects only. It could do so much more.
24) Training and Development consistency, relevance and quality needs to be looked at closely. Why does the Public Service Commission offer some training, while other providers also offer some training? Why are training courses only offered on an “as requested” basis, i.e. some people get training while others do not? It should be offered the same to all employees regardless of “management approval”. If a well trained Public Service is a goal, then consistent and high quality training should be offered to all staff at all levels. This will promote innovation. Perhaps even a course specifically designed to promote innovative thinking could be designed for all staff, including elements in it on how specifically to actually submit ideas to be considered. Likewise, it should be the same across the Public Service and not just “some departments”, “some sections” or “some people”.
25) Open Office concept needs to be reviewed. The lack of privacy in the “open office” layout in most government departments needs to be reviewed, since people are fearful of talking openly due to the lack of privacy and fear of repercussions. Why can’t the office space have higher walls or walls between sections to allow some degree of privacy? Directors have their own offices for privacy, why can’t staff have some privacy? The current layout reinforces the impression that senior management get “perks” that other are not entitled to for no good reason.
26) Whistleblowing and complaints need to be encouraged not discouraged and acted upon. This is actually a source for the organisation to improve and to gauge opinion, but whistleblowers and complainers need to be listened to and protected from firing, demotion, performance suddenly becoming an issue and career stagnation.
27) IT Security/Internet restrictions are relevant to restrict porn and violent sites, etc., but when the MAC is using Twitter for discussion yet staff at DIISR are blocked from using Twitter or Facebook for discussions, it seems contradictory and unfair? Why does the organisation encourage people to use Twitter on the one hand yet blocks them on the other? Isn’t there a way of blocking bad sites while allowing good ones? Instead DIISR just blocks everything! Why isn’t there a consistent, Public Service-wide policy on Internet usage, something clear and precise (i.e. not “do not use inappropriate sites”). The current situation is hardly necessary and certainly not conducive to open discussion or innovation.
These ideas I am sure would improve morale within the Public Sector and therefore communication and innovative ideas. The government is aware it has a huge problem. The government should be aware of the huge resistance to change that its own structure and hierarchy encourages. This resistance must be overcome.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-12; просмотров: 257; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!