Summary of the Investment process After Action Review 30 March 2015 This summary is based on a review of feedback from a number of sources including: Department and Area teams within the Arts Council Umbrella groupings, such as the recognised Union, Unite National and Area Councils A selection of external stakeholders, including successful and unsuccessful applicants, and those who chose not to apply Staff survey’ ‘Pulse Quality Assurance report on the process The context for the 2014 National portfolio and Major partner museum investment process was a combination of office moves, major business system and staff changes, the refreshing of our 10-year Strategic Framework and the uncertainty of a one-year Spending Review settlement. This provided serious challenges to the smooth running of the investment process. Overall, the 2014 Investment process was viewed as a success. It built on and enhanced the open application approach first introduced in 2010/11. There were minimal technical difficulties, fewer complaints and good support from across the organisation. Inevitably, there were areas where the design and the implementation of the process could be improved, and these areas are outlined below. The NPO/MPM investment process should be seen as another step in the journey to re-shape the way in which public funds are delivered to the arts and culture. We have more work to do to respond to the economic climate and a constantly changing and dynamic sector. Some were concerned that there was less or change in the make-up of the ‘churn’ new portfolio. However, this could also reflect an appropriate consolidation of support for a group of organisations that are themselves adapting and continuing to deliver against the Arts Council’s strategic goals. Other feedback focused on whether the application process is more challenging for new candidates. It was also that earlier development of guidance would have been beneficial, as would earlier sharing of this material, notably in our approach to the Creative Case and Equality Analysis. In addition some shortcomings in our classification system were exposed, and the need for clearer version control was highlighted. We are already looking to the future, and in considering the work required to prepare for the General Election and the Spending Review we have started to reflect that our strategic focus between now and the end of the decade should
Summary of the Investment process After Action Review 30 March 2015 This summary is based on a review of feedback from a number of sources including: Department and Area teams within the Arts Council Umbrella groupings, such as the recognised Union, Unite National and Area Councils A selection of external stakeholders, including successful and unsuccessful applicants, and those who chose not to apply Staff ‘Pulse survey’ Quality Assurance report on the process The context for the 2014 National portfolio and Major partner museum investment process was a combination of office moves, major business system and staff changes, the refreshing of our 10-year Strategic Framework and the uncertainty of a one-year Spending Review settlement. This provided serious challenges to the smooth running of the investment process. Overall, the 2014 Investment process was viewed as a success. It built on and enhanced the open application approach first introduced in 2010/11. There were minimal technical difficulties, fewer complaints and good support from across the organisation. Inevitably, there were areas where the design and the implementation of the process could be improved, and these areas are outlined below. The NPO/MPM investment process should be seen as another step in the journey to re-shape the way in which public funds are delivered to the arts and culture. We have more work to do to respond to the economic climate and a constantly changing and dynamic sector. Some were concerned that there was less ‘churn’ or change in the make-up of the new portfolio. However, this could also reflect an appropriate consolidation of support for a group of organisations that are themselves adapting and continuing to deliver against the Arts Council’s strategic goals. Other feedback focused on whether the application process is more challenging for new candidates. It was also that earlier development of guidance would have been beneficial, as would earlier sharing of this material, notably in our approach to the Creative Case and Equality Analysis. In addition some shortcomings in our classification system were exposed, and the need for clearer version control was highlighted. We are already looking to the future, and in considering the work required to prepare for the General Election and the Spending Review we have started to reflect that our strategic focus between now and the end of the decade should
Investment-process-After-action-review_Mar-2015.docx