Competitive Service Delivery - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Com etitive Service Relive Team , C 0 UMCIL - rvice De every - ment Tool ` IK FNF / Like all governmental entities throughout Oregon, the City of Eugene struggles to sustain and/or enhance public services as resources continue to dwindle. The organization considered the impacts of alternative methods for delivering services as early as January 1993 when a paper entitled, "Draft Outline for Policy and Procedure on Competitive Contracting" was produced. The topic was addressed again in June 2002 by the JLMRC with a paper, "Competitive Service Delivery". Yet no real action resulted from these two documents, and the issue was folded into contract language between AFSCME and the City. As part of the last contract agreement, the City of Eugene and AFSCME agreed to form the Competitive Service Delivery Team (CSDT), which began meeting in July 2005. The team is staffed by five members of AFSCME Local 1724 and six exempt employees. Working from the two papers already prepared by City of Eugene groups as well as resource materials listed below, the Competitive Services Delivery Team produced a workbook named the Competitive Service Delivery Assessment Tool. The purpose of the Competitive Service Delivery Assessment Tool is to provide service delivery managers a standardized process and outline used to assemble the basic information necessary to make informed decisions regarding service delivery, to seek stakeholder input, and to make the decision - making process more transparent. This tool will help produce an initial assessment. It does not provide a definitive answer to the question of the best means for delivering services; however, it is comprehensive enough to clearly present the viable options available. The tool has four levels, assembled in the order that will logically guide the user through the process of analyzing a service that is being considered for change. Level 1 helps the user clearly define the "what and why" of the service with questions like, `Clearly define the service or product', `Why is change being considered ?' `Who is the customer ?', `What are the direct and indirect costs ?' This basic analysis can be useful to improve service when the choice is that the work stays in- house. Level 2 helps the user identify options for change; Internal Service Improvement? Outsource? In- source? Eliminate service? In thinking about the options, the user may decide that delivery of the current service is satisfactory and no change is warranted. It may also reveal other actions that need to be taken before considering a service delivery change. Once one or more options for change have been identified, Level 3 guides the user to explore each of the options and understand implications accompanying a service delivery change. Analysis of key areas (Market, Service Management, Employees, Risk, Customers, Costs, and Legal/Policy) provides details that might otherwise have been overlooked. This level might illuminate the fact that change is not necessary, not wise or not legal. Completing Level 4, the costing model, will help the user make accurate comparisons of costs associated with a service, and to make those costs understandable by all stakeholders. When all the levels of the model are completed, the tool guides the user in decision making with the basic tenet that decisions are made based on information from a balanced assessment of the elements outlined in the tool. This will also hopefully guide decisions that will optimize service to the customer, and it does not preclude the notion that internal service improvement is always an option for change. We, the Competitive Service Delivery Team, hope this tool will be used successfully by city employees and will enhance collaboration between labor and management. Quentin Blattler, Kevin Boyle, Lauren Chouinard, Jeff Lankston, Mike Magee, Dal 011ek, T