Resourcing Agenda for Change (AfC) in roll out sites

1 Introduction

This set of notes has been drafted in response to frequent requests for information on the costs of the initial AfC implementation project (not of the package itself)[1]. This paper is based on experience in Early Implementers. It provides a framework within which organisations can consider resource requirements, rather than a detailed methodology for quantifying those requirements.

2 Some issues before looking at resources

The NHS as a whole wanted a new pay system and wanted radical change. Any major implementation has associated costs.

Seeing the implementation of Agenda for Change simply as another cost pressure is to ignore the benefits which will flow from AfC. These include:

·  The degree of vulnerability of the current national system to equal value claims will be removed by moving to AfC

·  The current mix of national and local systems has associated costs. These will be reduced by moving to a single system.

·  AfC provides organisations where there are two or more pay systems with a new common standard to move. This will save time and effort.

·  Agenda for Change has been designed and agreed in partnership to yield benefits over the longer term. AfC is about investing in a new pay structure which will enable and support new ways of doing things and thereby provide better and more cost-effective services to patients. The new system will make service modernisation and the development of new roles easier and lead to productivity gains. The MA is collating information to demonstrate some of the gains AfC has already delivered in EIs (alongside other initiatives).

·  The new simplified system will reduce the costs of administration in the near future. That is, once assimilation is completed, costs associated with payroll administration should reduce markedly. EIs report that payroll departments have been able to re-focus the service they provide to their organisations as a result of AfC.

AfC will work alongside other initiatives, notably IWL, to develop the NHS into a modern employer. This might be characterised as an aspiration at this stage. However, it is difficult to disagree with the notion that improvements to the image, and to the reality, of the NHS as an employer will improve recruitment and retention, improve morale, and reduce the costs associated with high turnover, high vacancy levels, and low motivation.

In this context the KSF is a welcome development. The NHS is being asked to institute good employment practices in line with HR in the NHS Plan. While some of the ideas are radical in the context of the NHS, they are hardly radical in the context of employment practice in the wider economy.

The extent of partnership working AfC requires has resulted in changes in culture in EIs and is spreading beyond AfC implementation. Staff and management are now sharing information, ideas and views at a level that was previously unthinkable, and are engaging in discussions about roles and service changes which were off-limits even 12 months ago.

Much of the preparatory work for AfC might be described as ‘house keeping’. EIs have experienced a re-invigoration of thinking about service delivery as staff and managers have a renewed incentive to understand and describe what staff do, to rethink existing practices, and to review rosters and rotas.

Hence Agenda for Change represents an agreement between the Health Departments, employers (who were represented in the negotiations) and Trade Unions. Subject to the conclusion of 2nd ballots, there is not an option to not implement Agenda for Change.

3 What sort of numbers are involved in the project?

These data are based on experience in a ‘medium’ sized EI - approximately 3,000 staff working in a dispersed mental health organisation. The approach is illustrative and is designed to help organisations think through the issues. It does not tell organisations what they will need locally.

·  In the example, the project group comprises around 20 people – the Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Staff and Management Leads for the key strands (JE, KSF, Terms and Conditions, communications, technical and information, modernisation), admin support, and co-optees as required. The group as a whole meets monthly. The group is supported by 2 union Full Time Officers who join project team meetings and have been active in key strands, notably around the agreement of local flexibilities.

·  For job evaluation there is a pool of 36 trained practitioners. JE is a labour intensive but short-burst activity, although there will be a continuing need for a small pool of panellists and analysts.

·  For KSF there is a pool of around 20 trained in various aspects of the KSF (eg cascading reviewer training, KSF outline development). The cascade process will continue as implementation proceeds. Ultimately the organisation as a whole will be trained appropriately as KSF moves from implementation to maintenance.

·  The new conditions groups comprises 10 people – 5 staff and 5 management. The number of staff representatives in roll-out organisations will depend on the type of organisation (which in turn reflects how many staff organisations are recognised for bargaining purposes), the size of the organisation, and the degree of organisation and trust within the staff side. The remit of the new conditions group is broadly similar to the remit of existing negotiating machinery. While this group may need to meet more often than existing JNCCs (for example) the agenda and time scales are clear. Hence this is not really an additional activity to that which would take place were AfC not happening. It has no associated cost.

·  Technical and information (payroll, finance, HR, IT). This group will be supplying information and data to facilitate the project, to align HR and payroll systems, and to develop the assimilation process. These are housekeeping activities which benefit the organisation and are not necessarily additional work. They have no associated additional cost. However, there is a large piece of additional work required to actually assimilate staff and this should not be underestimated.

4 So what levels of ‘human resource’ are required?

The various project roles are described in papers available on the MA web site. The table below sets out an estimate of the ‘whole time equivalent’ resource required based on EI experience. This is predicated on an ‘average’ Trust of approximately 3,000 staff. NB: This provides examples to help Trusts think through locally what is required. It does not seek to estimate the actual resources required by any organisation.

Table: Roles and resources: an example

Role

/ WTE over
14 months
Administrative resource for all aspects of project (support to project manager, administration of JE and KSF sub-projects, administration of JE and KSF electronic tools) / 3 WTE
Project manager (where combined with other lead role or roles) / 0.5 WTE
JE sub-project leads – will work closely with project managers and admin staff to co-ordinate JE sub-project / 0.5 WTE
KSF sub-project leads. As above. Best filled by learning reps/training managers / 0.5 WTE
New conditions leads. Some new work for existing staff side lead and pay and benefits managers. Remainder of CoS team likely to be drawn from existing staff/management fora. / 0.2 WTE
Communications leads / 0.2 WTE
Modernisation leads / 0.1 WTE
JE trainers: will need to be trained themselves and then train JE practitioners as required. Example of 40 practitioners trained for 3 days each / 0.6 WTE
JE practitioners. Level of resource will be contingent on local circumstances. See worked example in appendix. / 3.6 WTE
Staff filling in JAQs (example of 150 staff each spending one day filling in a JAQ) / 0.75 WTE
JE panel co-optees. The input here will be managers and staff from given work area providing information to panels. This is discounted. / 0
KSF training. All staff will need access to an awareness raising session of up to 3 hours. This can be delivered to groups of 20. Approx = 0.3 WTE per 1,000 staff (including trainers time): / 1.0 WTE
It is estimated that on average, one in ten staff will be reviewers of other staff. It is suggested that where appraisal processes are already well established, each reviewer will need an average of approximately one day of training in KSF review processes / 0.5 WTE
Developing KSF outlines. Half day per outline, assumes 300 jobs requiring outlines. / 0.75 WTE
Other supporting aspects of KSF such as appraisal, development of PDPs etc are discounted as already required by HR in the NHS plan/good practice / 0
Payroll, HR, IT and finance staff. Assumes 0.5 WTE members from each of these areas dedicated to project throughout (developing assimilation process, data capture methods, training managers, etc) and additional 2 WTE for 3 months at point of assimilation. A ‘rule of thumb’ for payroll is that for each member of staff to be assimilated there will be a need for an average of one hour of work at the point of assimilation: 30 mins on assimilation, 30 mins on arrears. This of course assumes that the required data is clean and available. / 2.5
Project Implementation Group Members/steering group. Assume meet monthly. Drawn largely from staff and management leads from remainder of project. / No additional resource – covered in above

NB: It is likely that in any organisation there will be a need to second the equivalent of at least one whole time equivalent from the staff organisations recognised within the Trust to act as lead representative(s). This/these seconded staff may (for example) operate as ‘deputy’ project managers, or work across several project strands.


The ‘Stepping Stones’ framework (see AfC web site) sets out a pathway which assumes a period of 14 months from ‘start-up’ (March 2004) to assimilation of all staff to new pay bands and conditions (April 2005). The framework also describes the work entailed in the KSF sub-project during this 14 month phase and beyond. Clearly the additional resources required for this initial implementation phase over the first 14 months will not be evenly distributed over the period, or between project areas[2].

The chart in Appendix 1 shows an indicative profile of the spread of staff resource across the initial 14 month implementation phase. These resources are additional to those which might be expected to be in place already to deliver trust activity in respect of general terms and conditions work and good HR practice.

The chart in Appendix 2 shows how the resources might be divided between key areas during the initial project implementation phase.

5 Resourcing the JE sub-project

During this initial implementation phase the job evaluation sub-project accounts for a high proportion of the staff resource the project requires: in this example approximately one third. For this reason it will help to think through how to resource and schedule JE. Hence:

·  Having a larger rather than a small number of practitioners will spread the load. But there is a potential trade-off with consistency here to be aware of.

·  Spreading the work over a longer rather than a shorter period will lessen the impact on those parts of the organisation from which panellists and analysts are drawn but carries a risk of not achieving full implementation of pay bands and conditions by 31 March 2005.

·  These considerations might assist when addressing the issue of back-fill: it may be easier for parts of the organisation to release staff for well-planned short release than for sustained periods. The converse may be true in other parts of the organisation.

·  The worked examples in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 (which use the spreadsheet available on the MA web site), are based on a fictional Trust which has identified 400 jobs, 250 of which it expects to match leaving 150 to go forward for local analysis and evaluation. The example shows how a different mix of level of resource, and concentration of that resource, will influence the overall timetable for the JE sub-project.

6 What other resources are required?

·  EIs recommend that ideally AfC should have its own dedicated office

·  JE panels will need to meet frequently throughout the implementation. They will require a degree of comfort, privacy and sustenance.

·  Co-opted JE panellists (i.e. staff and management representatives from the work areas under consideration) may need to wait in comfort before joining panels

·  Each JE panel needs access to a PC or lap-top which meets the specification required by the JE software, including access to the internet and/or NHS Net.

·  Panels benefit from ready access to printers, screen projectors and telephones

·  the implementation group and sub-groups will need to meet regularly

·  trainers will need to meet each other to plan and evaluate training

·  trainers will need venues, facilities and support to train practitioners

·  staff will need to be briefed regularly

·  at the point of assimilation there will be a need for pay clinics and telephone support.

7 How to save on resources

·  Actively seek opportunities to share resources wherever possible. SHAs have a role in brokering these opportunities.

·  Think about where to apply resources. Where SHAs are identifying funds to support implementation, SHAs and Trusts need to work out between them where these resources are most effectively applied. In some instances this might be at Trust level, in others it might be more efficient if the SHA provides a supporting infrastructure.