Making Things Happen in Government Report of a One-Day Seminar at the Civil Service College
| Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Published date | 01 December 1989 |
| Author | Michael Duggett,Geoffrey Gammon |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207678900400302 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
3
Making
Things
Happen
in
Government
Report
of
a
One-Day
Seminar
at
the
Civil
Service
College
Geoffrey
Gammon
and
Michael
Duggett
Civil
Service
College,
1989
[On
4
November,
1988
the
Civil
Service
College
organised,
for
members
of
the
Public
Administration
Committee,
a
seminar
on
recent
developments
within
Government.
The
list
of
guests
is
at
Annex
1.
Speakers
came
from
the
Next
Steps
Project
Team
in
the
Office
of
the
Minister for
the Civil
Service,
the
Vehicle
Inspectorate
Agency,
the
Civil
Service
College
and
the
Enterprise
Initiative
Unit
of
the
Department
of
Trade
and
Industry.
We
offer
below
a
summary
of
the
main
points
made
and
issues
discussed.]
NEXT
STEPS:
PROJECT
TEAM
Speaking
as
a
member
of
the
small
Next
Steps
Project
Team
in
the
OMCS
headed
by
Mr.
Peter
Kemp
(Second
Permanent
Secretary
and
Project
Manager)
Diana
Goldsworthy
began
with
a
comparison
of
the
Ibbs
Report
published
in
February
1988
with
the
Northcote-Trevelyan
Report
of
1854.
It
could
be
of
equally
far-
reaching
effect,
and had
aroused
a
similar
degree
of
intra-
and
extra-governmental
interest.
The
Civil
Service
traditions
of
accuracy
and
accountability
needed
to
be
retained
but
built
upon.
Remembering
the
sheer
diversity
and
size
of
the
present
service -
52
departments,
2,000
different
grades,
mostly
outside
London
and
with
only
0.7%
in
what
had
in
the
past
sometimes
been
referred
to
as
the
’mandarin’
grades -
it
was
the
Ibbs
Report’s
contention
that
there
was
minimal
managerial
sense
in
attempting
to
run
the
Civil
Service
as
a
single
entity.
For
many
years
there
had
been
a
movement
towards
dividing
the
Service
into
a
smaller
number
of
discrete
manageable
units.The
Government’s
policy
was
that
to
the
greatest
practicable
extent
the
executive
functions
of
Government,
as
distinct
from
policy
formulation,
should
be
carried
out
by
discrete
units
of
management,
to
be
known
as
Agencies.
The
keynote
of
the
Next
Steps
reform
was
that
structure
would
follow
function.
Agencies’
operations
would
be
characterised
by
focusing
more
on
results
and
on
the
delivery
of
services
than
had
been
traditional
in
the
Civil
Service
culture.
Equally
new
would
be
the
degree
of
personal
responsibility
delegated
to
the
Chief
Executives of
such
Agencies,
and
the
emphasis
on
training
and
experience
in
delivering
services.
Chief
Executives
would
be
likely
to
acquire
a
new
public
visibility,
as
opposed
to
the
older
tradition
of
anonymity.
To continue reading
Request your trial