Chapter 9: Building APS capability

Whole of government capabilities

The State of the Service Report 2001–02 indicated that the conduct of whole of government issues would be canvassed in more detail in this year’s report. Issues of this type involve work undertaken across agencies to achieve a shared goal and integrated government response. Such issues can be characterised as falling across boundaries established by individual portfolio responsibilities, and therefore requiring an interagency approach, often in collaboration with other jurisdictions and/or community, business, welfare or other groups.

Service-wide issues for whole of government activity

Whole of government issues have always existed, but their increasing importance among key government priorities is a current phenomenon both in Australia and overseas. The main drivers behind the increasing priority being given to issues of this type are globalisation and global developments, budget pressures, technology and changing community expectations of government service delivery. Since the mid-1980s, whole of government issues have been progressively tackled in an increasingly devolved environment, characterised by an emphasis on vertical agency-based effectiveness and a focus on agency or portfolio outcomes. There is now a growing emphasis on the need for developing horizontal ways of working to complement vertical portfolio cultures and structures.

Specific whole of government activities undertaken in recent years include:

• Australians Working Together
• response to the Bali attack
• COAG Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce
• Australian Greenhouse Office
• Natural Resource Management Team
• National Illicit Drugs Strategy
• the 2000 Olympics
• Sustainable Regions
• salinity issues
• regional forest agreements
• foot and mouth simulation
• response to the ANSETT collapse
• National Counter-Terrorism Committee
• Centrelink Business Partnership Arrangement
• Family Assistance Office
• National Transport Safety Authority
• response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak.

The Government’s current policy agenda and priorities include a range of issues (e.g. national security and defence, work and family life, demographics, science and innovation, education, sustainable environment, energy, rural and regional affairs, and transport) that call for a whole of government approach, as Prime Minister Howard stressed in a major address late in 2002.³⁴

The effective handling of whole of government issues has been under discussion by MAC, and will be the subject of a MAC report in the near future. Drawing on practical experience of the initiatives listed above, the MAC report will canvass changes that may be required to APS arrangements when whole of government issues arise. These changes will emphasise the effective integration of a vertical, portfolio-based management structure with horizontal networks working across the APS and beyond. The report will examine adaptive strategies that can be applied to APS structures and processes, budgeting and accountability measures, information technology and infrastructure, and community consultation processes.

In practice, steps need to be taken at all these levels to increase the capability of the APS to deliver whole of government outcomes. In addition, such capability requires effort to improve Service-wide leadership, and to promote cultural and behavioural change. There is scope to introduce a genuine bias towards collegiality and networking behaviour amongst APS employees. Senior leaders have a direct role in modelling such behaviour—and indeed it should be noted that the PS Act identifies ‘promot[ing] cooperation with other agencies’ as a core function of the SES.³⁵ More broadly, the APS Values offer a common ground upon which to build a culture that supports collaboration, lateral thinking and information sharing. As shown in Chapter 3, these are widely agreed to be relevant to the daily work of APS employees despite operational and regional differences, and to apply to agency businesses across organisational structures.

Agency action to support whole of government activity

Whole of government activities may occur on a number of levels, from ongoing cooperative approaches to formal committee structures. Different arrangements will be needed to underpin different types of activities. Formal multi-agency decision-making forums will of course establish their own lines of accountability and operational arrangements. However, there is also an important role for policies or guidelines within individual agencies intended to support employee participation in interagency collaboration, whether that activity is conducted through an ongoing cooperative arrangement such as a one-stop shop for service delivery or a formal committee.

The agency survey sought information concerning the extent of systems and procedures in individual agencies supporting whole of government activities. Ten agencies reported either having or developing guidelines/policies to guide employees’ participation in formal, multi-agency decision-making forums such as interdepartmental committees or taskforces. Seventy-nine agencies reported having no specifically tailored guidelines or policies addressing whole of government interactions, although having relevant arrangements as part of general agency internal processes. A number of small agencies indicated that they did not require such guidelines.

With respect to the specific policies and guidelines just outlined, four agencies had procedures for ensuring that only employees with the relevant skills, knowledge and authority participate in multi-agency forums, procedures establishing responsibility for recordkeeping, and procedures for reporting back to other agency employees. Five agencies reported having procedures for ensuring appropriate authority for views expressed on the agency’s behalf, and three reported having procedures for ongoing briefing of involved Ministers.

Capacity building forwhole of government activity

In a devolved management environment, agency heads are responsible for the development of the capabilities required to achieve their agency’s business objectives, including participation in broader whole of government objectives.

At the entry level, agencies could promote whole of government aspects of their work in attracting graduates, and ensure that a whole of government focus runs through their induction programs, encouraging from the outset a bias towards collegiality.

At more senior levels, overall mobility among the SES does not appear to be a significant factor affecting whole of government interaction. APSED reveals that 41% of the SES have worked in three or more agencies. This is consistent with the employee survey, where 44% of SES respondents stated that they had worked in three or more portfolios. Nevertheless it is also true that, according to APSED, 39% of SES have worked in only one agency (38% of SES respondents to the employee survey).

It is important that this large group of the leadership cadre with limited APS experience is encouraged to network across the APS. There may be value in considering the usefulness of temporary placements outside a home agency, or involvement in particular cross-agency projects, to help develop a capacity for collaborative work and for taking a whole of government perspective. In this context, it is worth noting that 14% of all employees surveyed (17% of ELs and 22% of SES employees) responded that they had access to placement and mobility options across the APS as part of their leadership development. Twenty-eight agencies reported offering such opportunities to ELs; 11 reported offering them to SES employees.

Employees could also be encouraged to become involved in informal and formal networks as a means of broadening their perspective and contacts. The APS Commission hosts a number of cross-agency networks, often at regional level, which encourage staff, particularly ELs and SES employees, to participate in crossagency networks and development opportunities. ANZSOG offers the added benefit of networking across jurisdictions.

Capacity building may also be required in particular skills. Much whole of government activity, for example, is project-based, and project management skills are particularly relevant. Such activity also frequently involves interaction across jurisdictions and with communities, where communication and negotiation skills are important.

The report of the MAC project will have more to say on training tailored to whole of government capability building. Broadly speaking, capability building for whole of government needs to address both ongoing interactions and specific project-based work, and to support both broad capabilities (such as the capacity to facilitate cooperation and partnerships) and particular skills (such as change management, brokering and negotiation skills).

Incentive structures

Performance management systems and processes also have a role to play in supporting the development of whole of government capabilities. This applies to both collaborative behaviour and strategic focus. The danger is that, where formal reward and recognition systems draw exclusively on individual agency targets, they run the risk of undervaluing networking skills and whole of government activities.

In practice, most agencies seek to supplement results-oriented performance criteria with some behavioural criteria. Almost 61% of agencies responding to the agency survey reported including in their assessment process behavioural criteria drawn from the APS Values or agency-specific values or behaviours. A further 15% of agencies reported developing such criteria. Where these behavioural criteria include communication and team-based behaviours, they should support both intra- and inter-agency collaboration.

 

34 ‘Strategic leadership for Australia: Policy directions in a complex world,’ presented to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, 20 November 2002.

35 Public Service Act 1999, s. 35(2)(b).