It sounds an incredibly complicated process, which it is but the reason for this is that the replies are going to members of parliament and then out to a constituent. So the importance on these letters and there quality is paramount as we are accountable to the public. Usually the letter received is of a serious nature which is why the M.P has been contacted for answers. The process has a lot of stages in it and the turnaround is only seven working days.
The general issues are that nearly half of the people within SPS are not confident in what they should be doing with official correspondence, it is not usually a regular thing that needs to be dealt with say daily by a whole case worker and so knowledge and understanding on this are not there or are buried under a mountain of SPS knowledge that is used on a more regular basis.
I have not really talked about the actual formulation of the letters by WCW yet, the issue is not this as a lot of WCW are used to sending out letters. They usually use template letters which don’t need much input from the WCW where as official correspondence requires a case summary and a draft reply. Although this area does encompass the basic letter writing knowledge and understanding so there is some cross over.
One issue that I have no control over is the fact that this work is not a regular piece of work a WCW has to do; you could get one in a six month period or one in a twelve month period or not at all. Or five in a twelve month period (like buses three come at once!) This creates problems for retention of knowledge and also problems with any changes in the process which may have occurred since a WCW last completed a case.
Method(s) of investigation
My methodology for this assignment was firstly identifying problems within SPS and look at if anything was required from a learning perspective. I was informed of some staff satisfaction survey results which gave me some impetus on what to focus on for investigation and to look at methods.
I have used knowledge I have gained on my CTP sessions such as the 10 principles of adult leaning, together with knowledge from some books such as Training practice- Hackett (2003), Accelerated learning- Dave Meier (2000), blooms taxonomy- Benjamin Bloom (1954), Experiential Learning- David Kolb (1984), and to consider the whole brain approach to learning (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995)
The main area in used in investigation was the results from the staff satisfaction survey this was discussed with Judith Foster, Naomi Heslop and Liz Routledge to come up with objectives and to look at further work in the future. It was decided to focus on official correspondence as this was creating a lot of re-work. These meeting allowed me to come to conclusions and make recommendations
I have spoken with people outside of the team to draw on their expertise and to gain knowledge and another point of view which has helped me greatly in coming to conclusions and making recommendations. They work in the customer team, they are on front line as far as correspondence is concerned and have a wealth of knowledge. They also gave me pointers on what they receive back from WCW’s and the pitfalls and the issues from the customer team and from the WCW angles
I assessed the standards and objectives which were agreed later by posing questions and discussing options possible outcomes/benefits and cost us then came up with loose objectives for what the SPS teams need to help them with official correspondence. This was driven mainly from the staff satisfaction results
To focus on these areas I looked at a models (Hackett 2003) and (blooms 1956) and from our CTP sessions looked at the session plans and the 30 minute learning event (what can be done in that time) and also designing training and assessment (Brian Hamer DPG 2009) to then take this research and come up with the objectives and identify what is required. This allowed me to scope this document using all the research mentioned above.
I have also incorporated the whole brain approach (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995)
to the overall body conclusions and recommendations. I tried to nail down the different sections which would form the basis for my learning sessions and managed to then break that down into five main areas
The main processes that will require intervention are:
1) Official correspondence – What is it?
2) Official correspondence- Case Summaries
3) Investigation methods
4) Style/Language (Tony Cooper)
5) Basic letter writing techniques (clarification)
Body of the report
The current instructions for official correspondence are very wordy and hard to find the decisions made on this solution (conclusions and recommendations) were to make sure knowledge and understanding to a basic level were reached for all learners; again the most important feature of what had to be discussed and decisions made came from the staff satisfaction survey. They are:
- 41% were not confident when replying to the national farmers union (similar to official correspondence)
- 38% were not confident in drafting responses to challenges/appeals and
- 42% were not confident in drafting responses to official correspondence
- 23% were not confident when completing case summaries (which is part of the official correspondence process).
- 41% would like to be able to find information more easily/quickly.
After discussing what could be done to improve the results for the next staff satisfaction survey in late August early September. We then discussed return on investment. The department is in a situation where it does not have any money to develop e-learning or procure external training. I still got together approximate figures which would be
Approximate cost per person (30 mins):
External training: £60pp
E-learning package with assessment: £58.25pp
Looking at approximate figures for training internally the figure was £52.59pp. This was still the cheapest option even though the other two options were unavailable even at this early stage. We discussed different options for how to go about improving these results one of the ideas for was to do cascades through the team leaders it was decided that the team leaders were too busy and so it was decided to look at the options internally but with learning and development
Three objectives were put together and in conjunction with the time restraints on the SPS teams restricted the time I could be with them, it meant the session could be no longer than 30 minutes for this piece of work. There will be other sessions designed if required once this has bedded in. I designed two questionnaires one pre course and one post course the post course evaluation is to be filled in two weeks after the sessions which will be around the 24th August (Please see appendix A and B) the reason for doing this with the 130 SPS staff is that until the staff satisfaction survey goes out again there needs to be a comparison done of if the learning session has made any difference to knowledge and understanding on official correspondence.
The Customer team discussed with me the fact that they now have volunteers in each of the teams to act as a liaison. This seems a very good idea as it will clarify a lot of issues quickly and allow the teams to work together more therefore pooling knowledge when required. Although this is just in it’s infancy it has great potential for medium to long term.
We agreed through various meetings to do a thirty minute event with the following objectives: (please see appendix C for session plan)
- Name 10 investigation tools that can be used for reference when completing official corresponded and general letters
- Describe the official correspondence process at each step
- Demonstrate how to fill in the case summary involved in official correspondence
I then based my event on these objectives and came up with a session plan (appendix c) to reach the objectives in thirty minutes.
The main processes that will require intervention are:
1) Official correspondence – What is it?
2) Official correspondence- Case Summaries
3) Investigation methods
4) Style/Language (Tony Cooper)
5) Basic letter writing techniques (clarification)
Thinking of these areas that needed to be covered I came up with the session plan mentioned above. One of the hardest problems was to get information on what is the current style and language that Tony Cooper likes to use. I got this through three example letter and some general pointers in the e-mail and letter writing course.
I started putting something together to explain why the style was needed (as Tony ultimately signs these letters) but abandoned this as I received information that this was not always consistent so decided to discuss this which looked to be fitting in well with a 30min restriction.
Another problem I encountered was that there was no follow up factored in. If issues are raised how would they be answered? As some of my own knowledge in this area is patchy based on the last one I completed was over 6 years ago. I do not know some of the technicalities so how would these be answered we discussed the options and decided the quickest and clearest way would be to do a FAQ which could be rolled out to the contacts within each of the 14 teams to then roll out to the team.
The customer team and I will work together after the events to provide this document as well as other materials and clarification to be rolled out. Simple information set out clearly as desk instructions are wordy and not clear in some places.
Conclusions
The conclusions made on the issues and options are:
The department can not afford to do anything apart from internal training due to cost and time. I think this would still have been an internal issue regardless of this as I had spoken to SPS during the critique and were interested in putting something together if there was a topic or area that is appropriate to design a solution for.
The cost is cheaper that the other alternatives, more importantly than this there should be a good return on investment and so eliminate reworking of official correspondence and with the tight timescales the WCW’s have allow them to focus on what is really required or find out what is required for doing the case summary and the draft reply.
There will need to a FAQ sheet sent out after the events to make sure of consistency for the letter writing being done, and cover off any issues.
There is no option to do nothing there are issues with quality checks and spot other checking on letters as well as reworking.
The customer team have contacts within each of the teams who can be used as a specialist by the team or as a liaison to allow effective communication between teams and the customer team on official correspondence and other letter writing issues
My conclusions for this learning session are:
- There needs to be group wok to allow people to interchange and discuss knowledge and issues
- Group work and facilitation when going through the case summary should allow any issues to be raised and that be feedback to SPS to formulate the FAQ and clarify the procedures where needed
- The pre and post course evaluation along with the upcoming staff satisfaction survey will give an indication of success and gauge if more work needs to be done to look at what issues might come up.
All of my conclusions have been driven by the meetings with the customer team and the staff satisfaction survey both of which had very similar issues/needs.
Another area of focus is that the update of material to help learning and give information to the teams needs to be updated as WCW’s do not always do this type of work. There needs to be some communication about this with the teams and the timescales involved in the turnaround of this work.
Focus also needs to be paid to language and style as the WCW has to try and put themselves in the shoes of Tony Cooper/RPA not complete the draft reply in their own style as this creates rework. There should be questions asked about the draft reply and if it is appropriate for the WCW to do this if they are unable to get the language and style correct. (All other letters go out in own style)
Recommendations
My recommendations for the SPS is to do a thirty minute learning event on official correspondence and follow this up after the results of the evaluation and staff satisfaction survey with further sessions with the contacts within each team to then cascade to their team these sessions can also be used for troubleshooting and even identify any further learning needs.
Use the objectives agreed for the learning session of:
- Name 10 investigation tools that can be used for reference when completing official corresponded and general letters
- Describe the official correspondence process at each step
- Demonstrate how to fill in the case summary involved in official correspondence
The recommendations include looking at the learning styles within the session and this should help with retention of knowledge as official correspondence is not always regular work done on a daily or even weekly basis.
The session is a short one but with handouts and the group exercises with facilitated discussion the “buy in” from the group will allow the learning to spread within the team from the experienced members of staff to the not so experienced as there not be too much opportunity to do this within the normal working environment.
The session could be tailored to this more effectively with more time and have assessments within group work to check understanding of:
- Step by step analysis of official correspondence
- Case summary examples
- Language
- Style
- Troubleshooting/issues
Although points will be covered with this solution, with more time much more can be done and help the business to have efficient individuals to go through the official correspondence. At the moment a lot of support is given from the customer team and certain individuals to staff who receive official correspondence for the first time.
The exercises and my assessment method of pre and post evaluation as well a verbal assessment during the session assessment will make sure that the session is effective I have considered the 10 adult learning principles and the whole brain approach (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995) as well as the learning styles and tried to incorporate them all as much as possible during the session which should allow the individuals in the group to be switched on opening up the group to real learning hitting all four quadrants of the brain and also allowing great facilitation of learning points as a debrief.
All learning styles will be able to think, read or attempt the style and language required with official correspondence through the recommended session and handouts and discussion.
The time benefits within this recommended and agreed solution are high although it takes some time for me it’s not as long as say one day sessions, and the impact to the business in releasing their teams for half an hour each is minimal and therefore other essential work can continue. This together with the cost benefit saving £7.41 on the most expensive option and £5.66 on the other option per person
This is (as mentioned previously) why the solution has been agreed with the business. The fact that the other two options had to be discounted because of budget, I am confident that the solution offered here in the report would have been chosen anyway as the others are based on either courses over a day or development of the e-learning package and the deployment and completion of this although they are approximate figures, I think these would actually go up as my own solution has been put back because of other work and therefore this would have cost the business more as my original dates for completion of this were put back last minute.
The business can absorb this as I am internal to the organisation. Companies who may have already have been on site would have to be paid regardless.
Appendix C
Session Plan
Appendices
- Appendix A: Pre event questionnaire/evaluation
- Appendix B: Post event questionnaire/evaluation
- Appendix C: Session Plan (learning event)
- Appendix D: Example of RPA training design document
References
Bibliography
Training Practice – Penny Hackett (2003)
The Accelerated Learning Handbook- Dave Meier (2000)
Experiential Learning Styles- David Kolb (1984)
Learning Styles Helpers Guide- Honey and Mumford (2000)
Blooms Taxonomy- Benjamin Bloom (1956)
Whole brain approach to learning (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995)