Table 1: Potential scope and Implications of changing the HR structure Potential scope of change Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Do nothing Quick wins Medium impact Best practice Personnel is behind the times – focus Reorganise existing Finance and Reorganise existing Finance and Establish professional HRM only on paper and procedures means Administration Departments by Administration Departments to departments MDAs are not delivering establishing modern professional focus only on professional HRM Better service for citizens HRM and Administration Units (consider renaming HR Current Finance and Administration Potential introduction of new HR (consider renaming as HR and Department?) Departments subject to ad hoc cadre which more accurately change as planning and procurement Administration Dept?) Reassign non-personnel duties to describes professional HRM work are made more professional. Finance Creation of new professional HRM relevant specialist taking place in these departments now moved elsewhere duty posts which may reinforce departments/units e.g. housing, service delivery transport, office maintenance, facilities Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Avoids resistance Civil service Modernisation Resistance from New, formalised Some officers State government Risk that undue to change service delivery of HR in state those who dislike professional may not wish to a beacon for other interference agenda government HR modernisation career path commit to a states in National and vested Allows poor handicapped officers better specialist Civil Service interest in poor practices to Cost of HR Separation of trained career path transformation ‘people’ flourish and State government Induction and conflated assume unable to training specialist and practices will be Recognition that Risk that Civil service stronger than legitimacy compete on a people matter to curriculum to generalist duties opposing forces enabled to support the drive for more competitive government as equip officers for will block the vision for the HR training to modern HRM global stage much as new roles changes state recognised planning and Focus on paper Successful standards MDAs fit for procurement not on people implementation purpose means conflict, requires support Personnel Professional HR behaviour and officers given from sensitised staff working with poor attitude the opportunity senior top management problems not to broaden and management to provide staff addressed deepen their with right skills skills set and Talent and and experience in capability build capacity the right jobs at used the right time
Table 1: Potential scope and Implications of changing the HR structure Potential scope of change Option 1: Do nothing Option 2: Quick wins Option 3: Medium impact Option 4: Best practice Personnel is behind the times – focus only on paper and procedures means MDAs are not delivering Current Finance and Administration Departments subject to ad hoc change as planning and procurement are made more professional. Finance now moved elsewhere Reorganise existing Finance and Administration Departments by establishing modern professional HRM and Administration Units (consider renaming as HR and Administration Dept?) Creation of new professional HRM duty posts which may reinforce service delivery Reorganise existing Finance and Administration Departments to focus only on professional HRM (consider renaming HR Department?) Reassign non-personnel duties to relevant specialist departments/units e.g. housing, transport, office maintenance, facilities Establish professional HRM departments Better service for citizens Potential introduction of new HR cadre which more accurately describes professional HRM work taking place in these departments Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Avoids resistance to change Allows poor practices to flourish and assume legitimacy Civil service service delivery agenda handicapped State government unable to compete on a more competitive global stage Focus on paper not on people means conflict, behaviour and poor attitude problems not addressed Talent and capability Modernisation of HR in state government HR officers better trained Recognition that people matter to government as much as planning and procurement Personnel officers given the opportunity to broaden and deepen their skills set and build capacity Resistance from those who dislike modernisation Cost of HR Induction and training curriculum to equip officers for new roles Successful implementation requires support from sensitised senior management New, formalised professional career path Separation of conflated specialist and generalist duties HR training to recognised standards Some officers may not wish to commit to a specialist career path Risk that opposing forces will block changes State government a beacon for other states in National Civil Service transformation Civil service enabled to support the vision for the state MDAs fit for purpose Professional HR staff working with top management to provide staff with right skills and experience in the right jobs at the right time Risk that undue interference and vested interest in poor ‘people’ practices will be stronger than the drive for modern HRM used
2C_HR_Structures.docx