The case for Whitehall business plans still to be proved

Four months after the launch of business plans for every government department, there are still many questions about whether they are improving the efficiency of central government – and about how transparent they are. Last November, when David Cameron announced that business plans would be set out for every government department, it was trumpeted as a way to make government more transparent and effective. The ministries' four-year plans, which include financial information, reform plans and departmental priorities, are updated monthly and are available online . They have been presented as an alternative to Labour's culture of targets, which the prime minister argued encouraged short-term thinking because public sector managers sought immediate results to meet centrally-imposed deadlines but at the expense of long-term service improvements . Progress Report An analysis of the government business plans by influential thinktank, the Institute for Government (IfG), finds significant variations in departmental performance since the business plans were launched. The IfG has analysed the government's structural reform plans – published last summer and incorporated into departmental business plans. The plans include major reforms in health, welfare and education; they set out the agreed actions and milestones that each department has signed up to and give dates for when these are due to be completed. According to the IfG, out of the 65 actions and milestones relating to key government bills, 57% of these were completed later than planned. The IfG says that the delays relate to a few large bills that have now all been introduced, which improves the overall performance of the government. However, the structural reform plans do not yet reveal whether there have been any knock-on effects, the IfG concludes. "If you simply count up the number of how many of each department's goals are now overdue it can paint a misleading picture," says Justine Stephen, a research analyst at the IfG. "It's not just a case of crunching the numbers. "To use the business plans properly you need to have an understanding of the content and context of government policies." To make the plans more useful, the IfG says that the government should consider showing any knock-on effects of missed deadlines on subsequent actions, and ensuring more consistency in the information included in ministries' monthly reports. As for the effect of the business plans on government departments, it seems the culture of transparency in Whitehall over government operations has its limitations. The Home Office, HM Revenue & Customs, and the Department of Health, for example, all decline to comment on whether they have seen any sign of business plans boosting efficiency and joint working. They refer questions to the Cabinet Office, which oversees the business plans. The Cabinet Office has been unable to provide examples of how the plans are improving government efficiency. "By making these [business] plans publicly available," one official says, "we are giving people the information to hold public services to account. We are being transparent about our deadlines, and public services have to answer directly to the people they serve." Joint working What about joint working between departments? Central government departments have long been criticised for failing to work jointly on issues that cut across Whitehall and society. Under the previous government, departments were required to work together to meet 30 priorities for government policy, set out in Public Service Agreements (PSAs). The coalition government has scrapped PSAs and there has been no clear replacement. The Cabinet Office says that it is responsible for monitoring joint working between departments. The business plans don't include targets or requirements for joint working, but are implied through goals, such as the government's carbon reduction plan, which cuts across government and therefore requires cooperation between departments. "PSAs created a complicated system of top-down, target-driven performance management of public services," says the Cabinet Office official. "We have scrapped this system, and adopted a new approach. The old target culture will be replaced by new structures that bring greater accountability and transparency, giving professionals the freedom to get on with their work without undue interference from politicians." Other changes to senior management structures in Whitehall, such as the changes to departmental boards and the appointment of business leaders as non-executive board members, focus on departments themselves, rather than on joint working between departments. It is still early days for the government's business plans, but there are question marks over their impact and value. There is no evidence yet that the plans have made or will help to make departments more efficient. Nor is there any sign that they will encourage more joined up government. The business plans have been presented as a milestone in demystifying government and making it more accountable to the public. However, as the IfG's analysis suggests, variations in data in departmental business plans, and the challenge of tracking shifting deadlines and cross-departmental initiatives risk diluting the value of the published information. This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Guardian Public Leaders Network to receive regular emails on the issues at the top of the professional agenda.