共享服务模式调查分析business report范文

下面这一篇调查分析报告，其实属于business report类型中的一种。可能会有不少人疑问，标准的business report格式不是这样的。对，标准的商业报告不是这样的，但是没关系。报告的目的是给别人看，达到商业分析报告目的即可！当然，建议business report最好包括 executive summary部分（下面这篇report executive summary部分是在报告目的中体现的）。其实这种现象是普遍的。好比，学生写的essay很多情况下只是参考essay一般结构，很少完全按照结构来。

引言

自1996年以来，威尔士议会政府内部就关于威尔士公共服务的运作和跨22个地方职能部门提供公共服务出现了激烈争论。争论的焦点在于地方职能部门的数量是否应该减少，以期更好地节约成本和提升服务。此外，“进行连接”的发布(WAG, 2004) 和紧随其后的Beecham公司的审查（2006）显示了采用横跨各个公共部门的自发协作的新途径的需求在增长。通过地方职能部门之间提供联合服务这一新模式的转变，以提高成本效率和效益无疑是最为重要的。

遵循此目标和在重组本地服务提供商时发生变化的驱动下，东南威尔士（CSEW）联合董事会在2007年11月委托了共享服务项目，由10个地方议会组成，包括卡尔菲利。这一共享服务模式的战略远景是促进参与其中的地方职能部门之间的合作和在功能区内提供人力资源（HR），工资和培训的联合服务。

Since 1996, there has been a serious debate within the Wales Assembly Government concerning the functioning and delivery of public services across 22 Local Authorities in Wales. Much of the debates highlighted on whether the number of local authorities should be reduced in order to achieve better savings and services. Further, the release of ‘Making the Connections' (WAG, 2004) followed by Beecham's review (2006), underpins a growing need across public sector to adopt for an approach which were more of a collaborative in nature. A new paradigm shift where joint services among local governments to enhance cost efficiency and benefits became paramount.

 

Following this and a drive for a change in the reorganising of the local service providers, the Connecting South East Wales (CSEW) Board commissioned a Shared-Service Project in November 2007, comprising of 10 local councils including Caerphilly. The strategic perspective of this Shared-Service Model is to facilitate collaboration among the participating local authorities and deliver joint services on functional areas of Human Resource (HR), payroll and training services.

1.1报告目的——PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report will aim in highlighting the rationale behind Caerphilly's participation towards a Shared-Service Model. Incrementally, the cost and benefits of implementing the model will be critically analysed with regard to Caerphilly's perspective. Other financial implications will also be thoroughly examined, supported by appropriate arguments transcribed from council reports, academic journals and so forth.

 

Additionally, the report will explore some of the key aspects surrounding Shared-Service concepts, and eventually try to fit these findings in terms of the proposed model. Consequently, why Caerphilly pulled out of the collaboration and the probable implications that led to the collapsed of the Shared-Service Project will be discussed, along with the identification of an alternative solution to the Single-Transactional Shared-Service Model.

 

1.2背景——BACKGROUND

 

1.2.1威尔士东南部共享服务项目——SOUTH EAST WALES SHARED SERVICES PROJECT

The Connecting South East Wales Board was comprised of the Chief Executives of the 10 participating local authorities in the South East Wales region (refer appendix I for South East Wales map). It was administered under the Wales Local Government Authority (WLGA). The 10 participating local councils are listed below:

 

Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

Bridgend County Borough Council

Cardiff Council

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

Monmouthshire County Council

Newport City Council

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

Torfaen County Borough Council

Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council

 

The ‘South East Wales Shared-Service Project' took off officially in November 2007, with the CSEW board procuring Steering Group to assemble a Design Team for designing a full business case model. Pricewaterhouse Coopers was consulted in order to conduct a joint preliminary study of the project life cycle. The basic concept involving the design could be broadly divided in 3 categories as shown below.

 

Firstly, the design of a ‘Single Transactional Centre' where bulk of the administrative task relating to HR, payroll and training services across the 10 councils would be carried out. One-fourth of existing staff from each council to be relocated to the SS Centre.

 

Secondly, to create a Specialist Service Team (SST) within the SS Centre in order to support all the participating local councils in areas of HR work. Of the existing staff in SS centre, 30% forms the SST, having sound professional background in varying fields.

 

And thirdly, the design of a Business Team (BT) through the retained 13 staffs by each council. The design of the Individual Business Team was to work alongside their local counterparts, providing support and coordination with the SS Centre at a more local level. The Figure 1 shows the structural representation of the proposed business model.

 

Figure 1: Proposed Business Model

 

In the above figure, ‘LB' denotes individual ‘Local Body' and ‘BT' denotes individual ‘Business Team'. The main objective of this design was to achieve a common working platform, efficient cost savings and improve front line delivery service. The two way arrows indicate the functional inputs available to both sides.

 

1.2.2卡尔菲利服务模式——CAERPHILLY SERVICE MODEL:

Prior to the genesis of the SS concept, Caerphilly's HR, payroll and training services were operated as a separate system. These services were provided by 96 full time staff, out of which 61 are Administrators, 23 Professionals and 12 Managers.

 

With Caerphilly's existing model, the cost of procuring specialised team and advisor for HR services by Caerphilly alone was unaffordable.

 

In order to reduce their operation cost, a continuous crunch of the budget was leading to a negative impact on the front line delivery system. Figure 2 represents the structural representation of Caerphilly's service model.

 

Figure 2: Caerphilly's Service Model

 

1.3为什么采用共享服务——WHY SHARED-SERVICE?

 

1.3.1相关费用——COST RELATED

Prior to Caerphilly's participation towards Shared Service, their average annual cost incurred for delivering HR, payroll and training was in the magnitude of £4.8 million.

 

More than 45% of this cost was spent on procurement alone. This amount was in the magnitude of £2.2 million. This scenario was a major concern for Caerphilly in terms of the revenues coming in from the public sector.

 

Given the circumstances that Caerphilly's public sector was working with 4 different HR-Models (namely Education, Social, Corporate and Environment), the cost of procuring extensive specialist and advisors by Caerphilly alone seems unaffordable.

 

If Caerphilly joins the SS Model then the cost savings was estimated to be in the magnitude of £1million annually. This means that the average annual cost incurred for HR service will reduced from £4.8 million to £3.8 million.

 

The £1 million savings would likely come from two sources:

 

300,000 was estimated to gain annually from efficient use and relocation of the staff towards the Shared Service arrangement.

 

Another £660,000 was also estimated to gain annually from the cost distribution of procurement.

 

However, the Caerphilly's council report (Barnet, N, 2009) states that although there is a clear indication of benefits achievable through Shared Service, the potential savings could be further reduced.

 

1.3.2孤立模式——ISOLATED MODEL

Before the Shared-Service proposal came into being, Caerphilly was operating with four different HR Models in areas of public sectors namely Education, Social Care, Corporate Services and Environment. This means that each model works on their individual systems and technology.

 

Although each HR Model operates differently, the functional areas of HR, payroll and training services could be found in all of them. Often so, such transactional oriented services tend to be repetitive and processed much the same manner across the entire models (Ulrich, 1995).

 

The detached structure of the HR models would inevitably restrict building business relationships. The opportunities of wider collaboration and an atmosphere of collective creativity could be lost in a detached environment.

 

Individual ‘Organisational Culture' may also greatly affect the working environment of their respective Organisations. Usually most organisations adopt the bureaucratic style of control mechanisms where formal rules and regulatory laws govern the policies of the organisations. Constant compliance to rules and regulations can represent a distraction from focusing in their core business. Henceforth, a ‘Clan Culture' would be more appropriate where organisations achieve efficiency through share values and beliefs (Ouchi, 1979).

 

1.3.3提升的工作效率与服务——IMPROVED EFFICIENCY & SERVICES

Shared-Service approach would make high end resources readily available to support their (councils) respective front-line service delivery.

 

Standardisation of processes would help maintain a consistent quality of service throughout.

 

Caerphilly's cost of procurement would be greatly reduced through cost distribution.

 

Common platforms and technology would facilitate easy installation, updates, training, and problem solving.

 

Collaboration among local councils will enhance cost savings and benefits.

 

Information sharing will allow setting up of better decision trees.

 

1.3.4替代“外包”——ALTERNATIVE TO ‘OUTSOURCING'

Caerphilly's spending towards third party procurement was significantly high. Instead of outsourcing activities across organisational boundaries, Caerphilly can transfer related non-core business activities to the Shared-Service arrangement to deliver at a cheaper cost and better standards. The Shared-Service approach would be a viable option to outsourcing for Caerphilly.

 

1.3.5来自威尔士政府的压力——PRESSURES FROM WELSH GOVERNMENT

Since 1996, there has been a serious debate within the Wales Assembly Government (WAG) concerning the functioning and delivery of public services across 22 Local Authorities in Wales. Much of the debates highlighted on whether the number of local authorities should be reduced in order to facilitate better management and services.

 

The release of ‘Making the Connections' (WAG, 2004) followed by Beecham's review (Beecham, 2006), underpins a growing need across public sector to adopt for an approach which were more of a collaborative in nature. Any council which do not act in accordance of the WAG's policies carries a serious reputational risk. Moreover, not participating in the Shared-Service agenda would portray Caerphilly's image as non-collaborative.

 

2.成本与效益分析——COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS

 

2.1成本——COST

According to the Council Report (Barnet, N, 2009), the borrowing required for the implementation of the Shared-Service Model would reach a whooping £34 million. The question is whether the source of this capital was predetermined in advance. If not, how will the councils and WAG support this cost?

 

The £10 million grant promised by the WAG could have eased the burden a little. Although the move made by WAG seemed promising, there is a strong impression that WAG has no confidence on public sector or the model itself. Nigel notes in his speech (2010) that if WAG would have pay up the grant money up front, it could have been a different story.

 

The cost incurred for the procurement of expert advice and project management (Steering Group, 2007) was estimated to be 550,000. Of this £300,000 was expected to come from the local inputs for preparing Final Business Case (FBC). Further, a contribution of £10,000 each was agreed by all 10 local authorities totalling it to £100,000 for support.

 

Another £135,000 came from the ‘Making the Connection' Trust. Now the point is that significant amount of money has already been spent on the preliminary study alone. Will the councils can ever convinced themselves with the investment made against the failure of this project?

 

It was found in the OBC report that, a savings between £14.7 million to £44.9 million could be achieved over a ten year period. This is in excess of 13% savings made across the 10 councils. The figure looks promising but majority of the cost analysis are based on estimations that can fluctuate with time. Another issue about the savings is the time line. A 10 year recuperating period is quite a long time for the real benefits to realise. Nigel in his speech noted that the there has been instances where certain estimation of cost savings were over ambitious and henceforth, not satisfied with the overall financial model.

 

Nigel's view on the financial model may have been caused partly by the discrepancies in cost estimation. On referring to the findings from the FBC report led by Orion, Caerphilly on average was going to save a £1 million. This is a fair benchmark in terms of cost savings. But if one compares with the Caerphilly's Council report, several issues were not accounted against the savings. For instance, the procurement savings was overshot by an extra £150K. Other cost such as ‘Migration & Termination (£50K), Borrowing (£50K), Health & Safety (£350K) and Administration efficiency (£250K)' were not taken into account. Therefore, the real savings (after payback period of 7 years) Caerphilly could make was in the order of just £150,000 which is quite marginal.

 

And of course, additional funds would be required for retraining the staffs moved into the Shared-Service arrangement. Staffs whose skills are not transferable would be made redundant which will again incur cost provisions. To top it up, the cost of officers time spent on this project has already reached a figure of £113,670 as of February 2007(Shipton, M, 2010).#p#分页标题#e#

 

2.2效益——BENEFITS

Going through the ‘Executive Summary' prepared by Orion (2008), individual councils were spending significant amount of cost, time and effort in handling administration work (40%). In order to improve the service delivery, the new model will transform ‘Strategy to 20% against 5%', ‘Performance to 40% against 20%', ‘Transactional Services to 20% against 30%', and ‘Administration to 20% against 40%'. This could mean a positive impact on the front line delivery systems.

 

Better ‘Work Force' planning and improved ‘Performance' would bring down considerable amount of administrative works. There will be fewer complaints to resolve and save time.

 

Procurement of experts and specialist affordable through the new model. Line managers can benefit through coaching and mentoring.

 

There would be a high probability of resource availability through sharing. Staffs would be motivated through extensive support from SS centre thereby improving deliveries. This will bring forth a positive vibe towards the relationships of employees and the organisation as a whole.

 

The notion of ‘Collaboration' in itself would open doors for a broader cooperation in areas of identifying best practices and innovation.

 

Cost Savings would be realised through long term sharing. Further reinvestment could be made to improve front line delivery systems. Each council would have a higher chance of getting excess to resources at a reduced rate.

 

A common technology platform will facilitate all the councils to have access to bigger database. This will facilitate gathering of better information and accurate data to build reliable decision trees.

 

2.3共享服务理念——SHARED-SERVICE CONCEPTS

 

2.3.1文献综述——LITERATURE REVIEW

Organisations are seldom driven to adopt a new strategy and innovative approach to meet its constantly changing organisational demands. In order to sustain its core competencies with one another, there is a growing need to identify business processes that are vital to the Organisation and those with lesser value adding attributes (Schulman et al. 1999). In this way, Organisation can focus exclusively on their core activities to enhance its deliverables. And on the other hand bundle up those non-core activities (such as Financial Management, HRM, CRM) and transfer these into a Shared-Service arrangement to service at a lowest possible cost (Walsh et al. 2008).

 

More often, these non-value adding processes tend to be repetitive and processed much the same manner across the entire Organisations (Ulrich, 1995). There is a need for standardising these processes in order to reduce process duplication, increase information sharing and facilitate wider collaboration through knowledge sharing (Wang and Wang, 2007).

 

According to Walsh et al. (2008), Shared-Service arises due to the expectations of improved service delivery against scarcely available resources. The emphasis is on delivering particular business services at a lowest possible cost thereby saving money in the long run. On the other hand, Wang and Wang (2007) describe Shared-Service as a driving force that requires organisational redesign to suit their organisational demands. This restructuring of organisational design brings together all the participating organisations in some sort of virtual organisation that facilitates resource sharing, knowledge sharing and risk sharing. In my opinion, Shared-Service can be adopted as an alternative to outsourcing on the grounds that it allows a long term business alliances, share resources and risk which cannot be found in outsourcing.

 

2.3.2组织文化——ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

Identifying organisational culture is an important factor in understanding the design and operations of the organisations. Metz et al. (2003) emphasizes the design of an effective ‘Management Control System' requires an in depth understanding of the Organisation Culture. This is in agreement with Wang and Wang (2007) as he notes, adopting proper control mechanisms across a particular organisational culture would influence the social system of the overall organisation, i.e. the relationships among employees and organisation as a whole.

 

Two organisational control mechanisms that are worthwhile to discuss in this context are ‘Hierarchical Culture' and ‘Clan Culture' (Ouchi, 1979). The hierarchical style of control mechanism follows a bureaucratic style of organisational structure where company policies and regulatory laws governed. It makes organisation less flexible to adopt collaboration and restricts its potential to build alliances. On the other hand, clan culture adopts a partnership style of control mechanism that is founded upon share values and beliefs (Ouchi, 1979), for e.g. a Shared-Service. The benefits of the Shared-Services are enough said in ‘Section 2.2'. “Staffs would be motivated through extensive support from SS centre thereby improving deliveries. This will bring forth a positive vibe towards the relationships of employees and the organisation as a whole”- (own quote, section 2.2).

 

An effective way of managing organisational change requires well planned training and development of the staffs before the change takes place. This is necessary to facilitate organisational transition to shape smoothly. Provisions could be made for a change management policy that will support the transition process. It is also paramount to identify the requirements of the stockholders and negotiate before the change, for e.g. ‘Unions' (David, H, 2010).

 

3.为什么卡菲利退出？——WHY CAERPHILLY WITHDREW?

 

3.1财务角度——FINANCIAL ANGLE

Unsatisfied financial model: Caerphilly's savings of £1million to be realised only after the payback period of 7 years which was projected to be somewhere in 2017. Nigel in his speech (2010) showed concerns about the impact from political bi-elections that will be held during these periods.

 

The commitment of £10 million promised by WAG never materialised whether it was grant or loan.

 

The £1million savings was estimated on total participation of 10 councils. When major financial contributors like Cardiff, Newport City and Bridgend have already pulled out then the savings figure will differ.

 

The FBC report (Orion, 2008) failed to consider Caerphilly's certain business cost that will further reduce the potential savings of £1million to a mere £150,000 (refer Council report, 2009 for a good summary). This savings is not very impressive from Caerphilly's perspective.

 

Unrealistic scale: Although the proposed model holds fair design principles, the bundling up of 10 huge HR models into one carries nothing but over ambitiousness. However, the model should be definitely feasible for few.

 

Caerphilly has already invested heavily for establishing its own internal service centre called the ‘Trent System'. If this system could deliver similar benefits to that of the ‘SS System' then there is no reason to take the bigger risk.

 

3.2工作文化的影响——WORK CULTURE IMPACT

Working in a new organisational model will have a great impact on the operational style of the new staff (Metz et al. 2003). My primary concern here is whether the transition from their existing culture to a new organisational culture will affect the morale of the employees.

 

The geographical coverage of South East Wales is huge (refer appendix I for the map). And will a common SS centre suffice all in the sense that travelling to the SS centre will not suit everyone.

 

There are speculations that due to the remoteness of some operations and displacement caused by the Shared-Service, valuable staffs might be lost to the council which are quite counterproductive.

 

Another concern for Nigel (2010) was the bafflement of finding a place to redeploy 83 staffs that will be made redundant by this project.

 

Given the current economic climate in UK and the amount of stockholders involved, the decisions arrived by the council is pretty much doing the math right.

 

4.另一种替代方案——AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

Caerphilly has been adopting internal collaboration since 2004 (Barnet, N, 2010). The benefits drawn from this system has already been addressed by Nigel in his speech (2010). He was referring to a ‘Trent System' where different HR models in Caerphilly's public sector are clubbed into one unit. In general, majority of the models are based on the ‘hub and spoke' (Barnet, N, 2010).

 

In my opinion, the investment made on the ‘South East Wales Shared -Service' project are not at all wasted on its entirety.

 

In fact, Caerphilly was able to gain valuable insights on shared service concepts and help them later to design their own SS business model. The cost of the procuring ‘PwC' and ‘Orion' could not have been possible and therefore there will be no subject matter on this study.

 

Nigel noted an achievement of £250,000 savings by this fiscal year. This savings is already half way through as compared to that promised by the SS model.

 

With better procurement of common ICT platform, more savings could be achieved. This can drastically reduce their third party procurement and agency spends. Nigel has already addressed for ICT collaboration with Cardiff that is in place this July.

 

In my opinion, it would be far more reaching to save public sector cost collectively at a more national level. Collaboration is definitely the key to it all.

 

The establishing of ‘Efficiency and Innovation Board' and the first summit ‘Meeting the Challenge of Change' led by first minister Mr.Carwyn Jones is a revolutionary one to deal with the public sector challenges.

 

To realize a full-fledged savings towards a wider spectrum, the people of Wales and government, both local and national, should start exploring collaboration in all areas of public sector.

 

5.结论——CONCLUSION

I have rationalised that the fate of the ‘South East Wales Shared-Service' project is not a failure. Rather, it has given the initiation for a greater need of collaboration for sustaining in the harsh economic world we live in. And regarding Caerphilly's ‘reputational risk', there is no point why Caerphilly has to stay behind when bigger cities like Cardiff and Bridgend have already pulled out. I believe the ‘Welsh Assembly Government' will rationalise and understand the complexities of the situation discussed in this report. My humble suggestion towards all the councils is to support and work collaboratively in achieving the programs outlined in the ‘Efficiency and Innovation Board' (WAG, 2010).

 

6.参考文献——REFERENCES

Barnet, N (Director of Corporate Services) (2009) ‘South East Wales Shared Service Project: Human resources (HR), payroll and training services' January 21, Caerphilly

 

Barnet, N (Director of Corporate Services) (2010) ‘Speech: South East Wales Shared Service Project' May 05, Colchester

 

Beecham, J (2006) ‘Beyond Boundaries Citizen-Centred Local Services for Wales' July, WAG

 

Essex, S (2006) ‘Making the Connections-Delivering Beyond Boundaries: Transforming public services in Wales', November, WAG

 

Farrar, J (2007) ‘Connecting SE Wales Shared Services Project Steering Group: Position statement' October, Bridgend

 

K, M (2007) ‘Connecting SE Wales Strategic Outline Case - Shared Services: Final Report' March 20, PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PwC)

 

Orion (2008) ‘Shared Services Project: Proposed Design Recommendations HR, Payroll & Training Services' August, London

 

Ouchi, W (1977) ‘The relationship between organisational structure and organisational control' Administrative Science Quarterly pp. 95-113

 

Schulman, S, Harmer, M, Dunleavy, J, Lusk, J (1999) ‘Shared Services: Adding Value to the Business Units' John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York

 

Ulrich, D. (1995) ‘Shared Services: From Vogue to Value' Human Resource Planning, 18(3) Harvard Business school Press, Harvard

 

Wang, S and Wang, H (2007) ‘Shared services beyond sourcing the back offices: Organizational design' International Journal of Human Resource Management 18: 4, 281-290

 

Walsh, P, McGregor-Lowndes, M, Newton, C (2008) ‘Shared Services: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors for the Nonprofit Sector' Australian Journal of Public Administration 62:2, 200-212

 

7.附录——Appendices:

Appendix I: Map of South East Wales,