Memorandum from Trevor Gash
Q1.
To a limited extent. Non public sector organisations
are generally involved in selling to a market that wants to buy
their product, but public service sometimes has to deliver what
benefits society rather than individual members of the public
or encourage take-up at cost levels that would be regarded commercially
as unacceptable (inefficient). There are, however, numerous examples
of public service ignoring "customer care" issues and
we still await the long promised "culture change" in
the NHS.
Q2.
Yes, but it would require a book to describe
the inventive subtlety required to define those that are not readily
measurable in time, money etc terms. Again the matter of consideration
fundamental to "customer care" comes to the fore.
Q3.
First, you have to communicate expected standards
to the public and if possible convey cost implications.
Second, you have to accept that a majority will
not have a burning desire to complete surveys.
Third, survey results must be reported and responses
described. Then you will have a basis.
User views should be collected by different
systems and variations investigated. Most people are loath to
confront directly so responding to an outside body is very important,
but an organisation that demonstrates that it genuinely welcomes
and acts on comments will also make a significant contribution.
Q4.
The whole area collapses around the word "complaint".
People frequently want to make "comments" that are taken
seriously, handled in a timely manner and stop further repetition.
It would be a useful kick-start to target "managers"
with achieving a significant increase in "comments"
received alongside improved response times and positive customer
satisfaction surveys on conclusion. We need a robust legal framework
in which the "blame game" and fear of legal challenges
does not impede speedy resolution. Speed and understanding are
the key elements.
Q5.
No.
Q6.
Yes, but only as consultants (there are many
expectations, which seem to depend on expertise) and through regular
communication of issues, plans etc, not, as so often, in occasional
outbursts of complex material with attendant massively bureaucratic
procedures.
Q7.
After eliminating issues, which would genuinely
prevent managers managing day to day, no, but there is a tendency
for consultation (reasonable discussion to allow views to be taken
into account) to be CONSULTATION as indicated above and thus a
major obstruction to progress.
Q8.
It has to be accepted that people with busy
lives are not just waiting for the opportunity to take part in
a consultation. Provided the instigators of a consultation understand
who their responders are, they should be able to handle the results
properly.
Early notice, widely distributed with non-jargon
explanations of the issues involved and different modes of response.
Q9.
Very poor value. Too many academic theorists.
Too much reliance on special interest activists. Too driven by
"fashionable" causes. You correctly identify the "mediating"
impact which assembles disparate views as an average cause. Frankly
undemocratic.
With the best will in the world, MPs can each
only effectively represent from close involvement, just a part
of the public service system. Outside their special interests,
local people can find themselves poorly represented.
Q10.
Frankly the overwhelming majority of the public
understand the issue of overriding policies, but too often see
this used as an excuse for inadequate involvement. It is highly
unlikely that most people believe in the democracy/relevance of
local authorities as evidenced by the very low turnouts at elections
and the discussion of results in terms of commentary on central
Government.
Q11.
By directing the results of the surveys to the
bodies responsible for the policies and reporting them as such.
Q12.
No, because at the very least they inform/advise
the policy makers and/or administrators.
January 2007
| 
