Sunday 16 December 2007

BSF - Designed by Vogons

I've been threatening for quite a while to write a post on the nightmare that is the BSF process. Well, it's Sunday evening and I'm in the mood. It's going to be a bit long and ranty.

I think the short way of expressing the problems is to say that I've been at my current school for over two years. The BSF process had started a few months before I joined and we still haven't quite agreed to a set of plans for the school or, for that matter, that we're committed to joining the process. If we'd just been given £21million and told to improve the school with it:

a) We'd probably be almost finished.
b) We would have actually had £21million spent on the school (instead of the £18million we end up with).

Instead we've had loads of visions, lots of consultation (though probably not of the right sort) and heaps of meetings. See my post dated 3 December for an idea of the quantity of meetings. It is the most crazy waste of public money that I've ever come across, and very few people involved in the process disagree. The preferred bidders we're working with have always seemed to be very open about the costs, and have told us that all the bid costs will be recouped from the Hackney BSF "pot". I know approximately what the costs are, but wonder whether putting the figure in the public domain would break commercial confidentiality, so I won't. Suffice to say the figure is big! That's just the bidder costs. In my more impish moments I consider putting in a Freedom of Information request about the costs to the Council Tax payers of Hackney.

Here is a list of things I don't like about the process:
  • It's enormously time consuming, particularly in terms of meetings.
  • It's enormously bureaucratic and expensive.
  • It patronises schools by suggesting they couldn't do these things alone.
  • If you go into BSF having your ICT services taken over by the private sector is compulsory. In theory handing over Facilities Management is optional, but in practice it's very difficult to retain them.
  • There is more than one layer of profit involved in all of these services, hence value for money is questionable at best.
  • Although the process is supposed to be "transformational", it's not clear what this term is supposed to mean.
  • Some parts of the process are just ridiculous. The Design Quality Indicators spring to mind as a low point (I may write something on this another time).
  • It's constrained by something called Building Bulletin 1998 (BB98). This is a formula that tells us how much space we should have. It doesn't allow for the types of extended services we would love to have on site - bases for Housing & Social Services, a creche etc.
  • It goes against the increase in school autonomy that LMS brought.
  • There is potential for budgetary problems in around seven years time when the ICT contract ends.
  • We all know about the horrors that privatisation of services can bring.
  • The bids were a million words each. The contracts are probably similar in size. Many trees have died for this process.
  • It engulfs my working life to the extent where it's occasionally hard to keep on top of other aspects of my job. Sometimes I dream about BSF.
And in the interest of balance, here's what I like about the BSF:

  • There will be much needed improvements to the premises. No leaky roofs etc.
  • Many of the architectural problems with the building will be ironed out.
  • It's been a tremendous learning curve. I know loads more about architecture than I did two years ago.
  • I'm looking forward to having a Help Desk for Facilities Management and ICT. I think there will be improvement in services.
  • I really like the proposals for the new block. I think it will look great.
  • I've met loads of really good people over the past couple of years. Some are real characters, some have taught me a lot and one of them took us on a lovely narrow boat trip on the canals of London (don't worry - no Labour Party-esque dodginess involved).
  • And, most importantly I believe it's aims are good. Ultimately it should provide a better learning environment for our students and allow us to focus on delivering the best education possible rather than dealing with dodgy plumbing. In short it's a good idea, extremely poorly executed.
Meeting Count 2/11/07 - 14/12/07 Thirty-three (plus a Governing Body Meeting that I'm not counting)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm looking forward to having a Help Desk for Facilities Management and ICT. I think there will be improvement in services.

... and presumably the call centre operators on the other side of the world or at RM HQ are happy to be in employment?

I'm sorry to bash your point when I feel that you have a very rational dislike of the BSF process overall, but really: you must have some ICT support in school - you have a Network Manager until BSF comes in - if you ask them to set up a helpdesk they can surely do it at approx. zero cost.

I can only assume I'm missing something.

Jill C said...

Hi there

I know our Network Manager will be pleased to see your comment! He has set up a helpline through outlook, but in order to be effective it needs constant monitoring, which doesn't fit with his team being out and about fixing things. It's not integrated with FM reports, and there's no means of letting people know the progress of reports (so they hassle you directly because they think you've forgotten). If we were not engaged in BSF, you're right, I'm sure we would have sorted something better out ourselves by now. I would have thought there would be some sort of cost, though.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jill

You do know that once you have comtacted the Helpdesk RM will than assertain whether it is a chargeable call .. ie damaged mice or keyboards from pupil rough handling will be charged for.. and a printer blockage non chargeable..

You also know that unlike your present Network Manager thare will be no after hour calls or assistance..

There are many free Simple Help Desk Systems that allow staff to monitor their requests ...