Turn and face the changes, by Nick Mann

CHANGE. Some people thrive on it, some people hate it.

And it is traditionally something that the States has been somewhat allergic to.

There is often much talk about evolution rather than revolution – in fact, the whole system of government is designed so that nothing happens too quickly or without everyone having a say.

But change is exactly what the States and its employees are now expected to accept – and if it does not happen we all pay.

The track record is not exactly breathtaking.

Take the Sap project and the reforming of how the States pays for things.

We finally know, from a series of written questions, that there were not enough resources thrown into the project and expectations were not managed well.

The pieces are still being picked up.

And we also know that part of the problem was with how staff handled the move to new procedures.

'It is important to remember that this project is not simply about implementing new software, but implementing a fundamental reorganisation of the way we work and the software that supports that,' Treasury minister Gavin St Pier said in a recent answer to questions put by Deputy Laurie Queripel.

Deputy St Pier later tellingly stated: 'It is not Sap that will be the problem, but a willingness of the States' organisation, staff and politicians to recognise that we need to embrace new and better ways of working to safeguard public funds.'

Changing culture has been one of the themes of the cost-cutting drive known as the Financial Transformation Programme.

But again, it has been far from a resounding success.

Predictions for the amount that can be saved have fallen and ministers are working on a Plan B after departments failed to come up with any more ideas.

Think about the future management of Beau Sejour.

Culture and Leisure, in rejecting outsourcing its management, seemed to indicate that there were savings to be made but it was all, frankly, a bit too much trouble.

So instead of saving £400,000, it believes it can save £150,000 – and if it can, the question has to be why hasn't this change happened already?

It has taken the pressure of the need to eradicate a multimillion-pound deficit, to ram home the need for change across the States.

Then take States pension reforms. One minute there is is the hope of States employees taking on a scheme that is at least

better value for money and the next, reform is stalled by union wrangling.

So the track record is not great – what of the future?

This will bring about, all things being equal, some significant innovations which will impact on the way the civil service cogs grind.

Two of the major drivers are being debated at the end of the month – the future of the States' property portfolio and a new access to information regime.

If approved and implemented in its entirety, the Strategic Asset Management Plan will have massive ramifications for the way the States operates. Frossard House becomes the centre for policy making, the tourist information building a place for people to pay their bills, and the emergency services relocate to one central St Andrew's site.

The traditional ways of working will change for hundreds of people.

Some people like to have their cup of tea at exactly the same time every day – imagine how they will react to such massive upheaval.

If embraced, these changes have the potential to make and save millions, but they bring with them significant upheaval, not least in how to manage the reorganisations with temporary accommodation.

And then we come to the development of a code of practice that would ensure the public has proper access to information the States holds.

In the years that this has been worked on it really has been a long drawn out process.

One of the themes that has been stressed, from both inside and out, is the need for a 'change of culture'.

Get the culture right and the need for any code or law vanishes because the public would be automatically told everything anyway.

But this is government, so everyone knows such a panacea is just a dream.

There has to be a realisation that any scaremongering over the costs of this regime essentially all boils down to how the States handles, or mishandles, the information.

A proactive release of material in an accessible place – not just buried in the black hole of the States website – will mitigate the need to answer requests.

Proper collection and management of data will mean it is readily available if someone asks a question.

And frankly, if departments answered questions properly in the first place it would end the back-and-forth as people try to unravel what is going on.

The States and its employees need to shift from inward-looking practices – procedures designed for themselves – to ones that work with the public in mind.

In its entirety, the moves being made in the States signal a level of change that it has not been seen in decades.

Badly handled, it has the potential to go very, very wrong.

The danger is that it will be too much, too soon and so progress will stall.

But embraced fully, it has the potential not only to save taxpayers money but to revitalise public confidence in the organisation.