Proposed Structure of Department
This proposed structure keeps the divisions, reducing their number, but greatly reducing the number of branches. Many divisions have been amalgamated, as well as many branches. This not only reduced overall management costs and the number of managers, but simplifies the current leviathan structure considerably. However, a better approach I believe would be to eliminate branches entirely and leave only larger sections underneath the divisions. This will have the added benefit of not only reducing management but flattening the entire structure, shortening the distance between front-line staff and upper management. I also took out the Deputy Secretary roles as unnecessary. Any liaison between the Minister and departments can be performed by the Secretary if need be.
Current Science and Infrastructure Division (DIISR) Structure
- Poor communication, expectations not made clear
- Function of branches arbitrary and unclear resulting in politicisation
- Political concerns override other concerns, resulting in no innovation
- Branch level cuts out innovation and concentrates solely on political and branch concerns; other concerns not deemed important
- Sections based on arbitrary divisions such as countries resulting in poor communication, siloing, narrow focus, poor attention given to policies rather than program and contract management procedures.
- Pedantic and process-driven
- Risk-averse, political motivations
Proposed Science and Infrastructure Division (DIISR) Structure
· Branch level removed entirely, simplified structure, streamlined, more efficient
· Sections expanded, amalgamated, functionally driven (i.e. based on what they do, not on countries or other artificial divisions)
· Numbers and levels of managers reduced substantially, front line staff increased
· Innovation area created, close to division head yet linked to all areas.
· Communication enhanced internally by reducing management layers
· Program Management and Contract Management functions taken away and given to ARC (in the case of science and research) or similar agencies.
· All divisional approvals need to show innovation in decisions including consultation with staff and even APS staff.
· Considerations can be more truly strategic and holistic rather than political or siloed.
· Not more than one EL1 for every section. Sections should not be less than 10 employees. This will make EL1’s less concerned with helping the EL2’s do their job but also, with more APS level staff to manage, better able to deal with problems/issues/events, etc. EL2’s also should deal with Divisional not branch heads meaning a wider focus. This will result in less “empire building” and siloing. Bigger sections mean that they can accomplish more.
|
|
|
· The names of the new sections I put in are not as important as the point being to reduce the subunits within the organisation, reduce the management layers and numbers and to make the new sections more functional and relevant rather than politically-motivated.
Other factors to enhance innovation:
- Expanded, consistent and better quality training for all employees
- Consistent policies, pay scales, job descriptions throughout the entire Public Service
- Enhanced IT systems allowing better communication, input from APS staff and data access, up to date and consistent templates and databases
- Relevant and clear job descriptions ensure new employees not disillusioned and creating better morale
- Innovation built into every level, section and function
- Single Collective Agreement for entire public service resulting in less confusion and better standards
- More top up consultation avenues for APS level employees
- Increase lines, methods and avenues of communication between staff and management and between subunits.
- At the time of hiring, all staff, but especially managers (EL1’s and above) should be extensively tested for their communication skills (or lack thereof!). Regular testing for any job applicant including promotions. More emphasis on communication for all staff also
- PDP process needs to be improved and standardised throughout the entire Public Service to include innovation and communication as well as clearer responsibilities and procedures for this process. (It is currently treated as a legal requirement only, not a useful process).
- Transparency should be the rule not the exception. This is not the case now. This will result in more risk taking also rather than being risk averse. Post on the common area all promotions, demotions, transfers, expression of interest results, graduate placements, all staff movements. Staff should be able to access the reasons for all such placements/decisions with the ability to appeal.
|
|
|
Дата добавления: 2019-02-12; просмотров: 193; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!