CFG
02/06
Corporate
Objectives
Performance Measures & Indicators
Customers and Stakeholders
People
Letter dated 25 January 2006 from Foodaware to Carol Wakefield, Meat
Hygiene Service:
Dear Ms Wakefield
Meat Hygiene Service (MHS): Proposed performance management
framework
for 2006/7
We are in favour of the proposed approach and endorse the need for
clear corporate objectives, which can be objectively measured so that
the organisation is seen to be accountable for the work it does, and
the resources it spends to protect public health and consumer safety.
Corporate Objectives
There are a significant number of objectives proposed, some of which
are rather vague and general (e.g. Objective 4 ‘to embed new
legislation’ and Objective 7 ‘To improve efficiency’).
Objectives 1 and 2 are very closely aligned and it is arguable that
enhancing relationships with customers is a necessary part of delivering
their requirements and so can be covered in Objective 1. Objective
3 should focus on the effectiveness of the MHS rather than its reputation
with the industry, and we would recommend removing the words ‘enhance
our reputation’ and make the objective ‘to improve industry
knowledge and …. ’. Industry should respect the role of
the MHS and the effectiveness of the organisation, but it will not
necessarily like the policies or practices by which they enforce legislation.
The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) field staff have a difficult role working
within private sector plants to ensure compliance with legal requirements
and standards. They should be viewed as knowledgeable and competent
but they have a completely different function from the meat producers,
slaughterers, processors and packers.
Performance Measures & Indicators
The balanced scorecard approach is well-known and increasingly widely
used to measure performance, and adequately summarises the main areas
of activity. The traffic light system is also helpful and will give
the Board a clear and immediate indication of whether the organisation
is on track.
We are, however, concerned that there is a lack of detail about what
the precise indicators in each area will be, and these should be specified
so that they can be seen to be capable of objective assessment. This
is particularly so in relation to Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Indeed
it would have been more effective if these performance indicators
had been developed in conjunction with outside stakeholders. Perhaps
that could be done in future years and we would be happy to be involved
with that work. By comparison, the financial objectives appear much
more clear-cut.
Customers and Stakeholders
Given their importance in relation to consumer safety and the importance
attached to them by the FSA and Defra, we understand that there should
be 100% performance in relation to cattle identification, BSE/TSE
testing and SRM controls. We are less convinced that 100% performance
is realistic in relation to responding to all industry demands at
all times, as this allows no margin at all and may only be capable
of delivery at disproportionate cost. The obligation should be subject
to a test of reasonableness and perhaps 95% or 98% would be more appropriate,
provided animal welfare and consumer safety were not jeopardised.
People
Staff quality, satisfaction, training and effectiveness are key to
the MHS success in delivering its objectives. We are disappointed
that there is no commitment to measure and monitor the effectiveness
of the internal restructuring that has taken place. The emphasis is
on inputs such as developing a training plan and pay remit rather
than on outputs such as satisfaction levels and competence measures.
I hope that these comments will be helpful. We are content for them
to be made publicly available.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Saunders
pp Susan Knox
Chairperson
|
