Minister Howlin - Many parts of the public service as not fit for purpose-Discuss

barfizz

Minister of State Brian Hayes has said unless there is a reduction in staff number in the public sector and an increase in efficiencies, the issue of pay will be back on the agenda.

Referring to comments made by Mr Howlin yesterday, Mr Hayes said it was a 'simple fact' that parts of the public sector were not working and were not fit for purpose.

Will the PS finally take their head out of the sand and accept that there is an expectation to perform their duty and stop hiding behind archaic working policies.

doc_17

Unless he actually identifies what areas he believes "are not fit for purpose" then whats the point of another PS thread to go round the same circles......

The more interesting topic to discuss is why he has said this now and not when Labour was looking for all those PS votes.....

RichardAnd

Most, though not all to be fair, PS workers go into work, do their daily grind and then go home just like any other worker in the world. I don't know what you mean by "archaic working policies" because the idiosyncratic PS work practices that I know of really don't have that much of an affect upon day to day work (I'm not a PS worker, used to be).

But yeah, this thread will just go the way of every other thread that mentions the public service. I have reached the conclusion that no thread on these boards can discuss the PS in a mature and rational manner. But hey, I suppose the fact that PS workers get caviar along with pinot noir from golden goblets for lunch would perturb any one

macannrb

doc_17 wrote: »

The more interesting topic to discuss is why he has said this now and not when Labour was looking for all those PS votes.....

Come on, reality had to set in at some point in time with the electrate. Nobody is going to get elected by saying "we fcuked lads, we are all going to have to take cuts, so vote for me and thats what you will get", particurly when FF gave the PS the CPA, an imaginary dream that everything was ok in Ireland and no changes had to be made. So it was simple for labour to get the PS votes, offer pretty much the same(no cuts), and the PS vote will migrate over to Labour as everyone knew FF time was up. The union heads were also advocating Labour too, as FG were admitting cuts would have to be made. And the unions need to keep their subscriptions up since they have costs too. How many of them are on 100k? at least a few of the chiefs. And with FF out, sure there would be less of the SIPTU slush funds available from the new government.


The IMF are turning the screw on them. Howlin coming out saying, money is finite is definately interesting. The IMF are clearly threatening cutting of the supply of money, because I'd imagine that Labour went into the latest round of negotiations a bit heavy handed making demands, and were met with the phrase, "ok lads, no more money if thats what you want"

macannrb

The real change that needs to be made in the PS is to make it more flexible.

Make it far easier to move people from one dept to another.

Take for example all the planners who have a very small amount of work to do, and then look at the far higher amount of work in the welfare offices. It should be easier to move people from one place to another to respond to the needs of the government goal of providing services.

Obviously training needs to be done, but a government employees should be put where they are needed most, and since recruitment has stopped, this flexibility is paramount

dissed doc

What parts? Where? Who?

This like "Change" and "Believe". Big broad sweeping statements that feel good and right because *everyone* has experienced some problem with a service at some stage - so it *has* to be right, right?

I see police arresting criminals, hospitals treating sick people, etc., . People confuse public services and the employees of public services with the **** they recognize in their own companies sucking the life out of the country such as the corrupt private sector and public-sector management class - both of whom together are destroying the country.

Tora Bora

I'd say, the labour ministers in this government are having nightmares about the pre election slogan "Labour's way, or Frankfurt's way":D:D

Mr. Howlin, is eating Frankfurters for breakfast, dinner and supper these days

Guten Tag, Herr Howlin:rolleyes:

Gumbo

Don't forget that howlin also said that they are committed to the CPA along as the cuts work and subject to the required staff reduction.

So all is still going to plan.

macannrb

dissed doc wrote: »

I see police arresting criminals, hospitals treating sick people, etc., . People confuse public services and the employees of public services with the **** they recognize in their own companies sucking the life out of the country such as the corrupt private sector and public-sector management class - both of whom together are destroying the country.

I fully agree with this

MagicSean

The public sector needs a complete overhaul of all departments from the top down. With proper redeployment and retraining of staff and reform of policies and procedures then the public sector could provide a better, more efficient and cheaper service in more areas without the need to make anyone redundant.

Just as an example: Find 20 staff who are no longer needed in their areas. Give them two weeks of training in social welfare legislation and benefits. Assign a Garda liason to them and have them investigate fraudulant claims. They should be able to cover their wages if they do a half decent job of eliminating fraudulant claims and claiming back money.

P. Breathnach

doc_17 wrote: »

Unless he actually identifies what areas he believes "are not fit for purpose" then whats the point of another PS thread to go round the same circles....

It's something of a fashionable phrase. Not so long ago we had discussion of the FG claim that the Dept. of Finance was not fit for purpose.

It's a silly, meaningless, expression unless you can:
(1) set out clearly what the purpose actually is;
(2) show that an organisation is failing to deliver satisfactorily in relation to its purpose;
(3) come to understand the reasons for any failure to deliver.

To claim any organisation is not fit for purpose without conducting at least such a basic enquiry belongs in the "sentence first, verdict afterward" school of thought (so much favoured by some posters here). And if the basic enquiry has been conducted, then we should be told something about it.

macannrb

k_mac wrote: »

The public sector needs a complete overhaul of all departments from the top down. With proper redeployment and retraining of staff and reform of policies and procedures then the public sector could provide a better, more efficient and cheaper service in more areas without the need to make anyone redundant.

Just as an example: Find 20 staff who are no longer needed in their areas. Give them two weeks of training in social welfare legislation and benefits. Assign a Garda liason to them and have them investigate fraudulant claims. They should be able to cover their wages if they do a half decent job of eliminating fraudulant claims and claiming back money.

Terrific and simple idea

Do the same with 100 other PS staff who are idle and send them to the revenue

Find another 200 other PS staff who are idle and send them to do admin work for the Gardai

try the above 3 ideas, and if it works do it on a bigger scale with other departments

Jaysoose

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's something of a fashionable phrase. Not so long ago we had discussion of the FG claim that the Dept. of Finance was not fit for purpose.

It's a silly, meaningless, expression unless you can:
(1) set out clearly what the purpose actually is;
(2) show that an organisation is failing to deliver satisfactorily in relation to its purpose;
(3) come to understand the reasons for any failure to deliver.

To claim any organisation is not fit for purpose without conducting at least such a basic enquiry belongs in the "sentence first, verdict afterward" school of thought (so much favoured by some posters here). And if the basic enquiry has been conducted, then we should be told something about it.

Can someone explain to me what the CPA is in place for if not to do this very task? Was it not an exercise to determine were efficiencies can be found and work practices that could be changed to increase productivity?

At the end of the day its easy to say that "all" the public service is run badly without evidence to back it up but when the same service wont commit to a full and frank review of each department to show the value they offer the public then what can they expect from the public.

Nobody would bat an eyelid if the pblic service could actually justify that the numbers are essential and everybody is working towards a streamlined efficient service but alas all we get is "begrudgery" "its magagement" "Lower paid public servants" and emotive arguments along the lines of "well if you need a guard or an ambulance you wont be happy" etc etc..

HAving worked as a contract it employee in the Public service for a while i was astounded at the lack of inititative shown on various projects and all the while various dept heads held up different projects in an arse covering exercise...all the while experienced intelligent it professionals are getting paid a pretty penny to sit and wait around for people to accept responsibility for anything.

We have reached the point were the IMF are obviously not going to listen to the excuses and bull**** anymore and if the public/civil service cant see that its in everybodies interests to get this sorted then they can have no complaints if and when the cuts applied.

Maj Malfunction

I hope this government has the balls to take some tough decisions towards the Unions.

If the public service wants to go on strike let them, but don't expect the Irish taxpayer to pick up the tab.

The Unions and their members must progress from the denial stage and move on and accept that the current situation is not sustainable. Only then can the country move on and face up to the challenges ahead, unfortunately that is going to mean cuts in salaries and jobs.

Whining and moaning is not the solution! The IMF has deaf ears! :P

P. Breathnach

Maj Malfunction wrote: »

I hope this government has the balls to take some tough decisions towards the Unions....

Wrong thread: the agenda here is PS-bashing, not union-bashing.

Jaysoose

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wrong thread: the agenda here is PS-bashing, not union-bashing.

This is part of the problem as well any critsism of the public service however valid is deemed PS bashing, all people want is the ps to accept that there is a problem and move toward a resolution.

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

This is part of the problem as well any critsism of the public service however valid is deemed PS bashing, all people want is the ps to accept that there is a problem and move toward a resolution.

How can it deemed toe valid criticism when the poster in question doesn't post facts. He mentions things like "let he PS strike, but don't expect the tax payer to pick up the tab" , if he had done his homework or looked into the rant he posted he would realise the PS staff don't get paid by the government when on strike.


He mentions whining and moaning but I don't see PS staff moaning, only defending faceless posts on here, sure aren't PS safe signed up to the CPA to allow for change, redeployment etc etc which is already happening on many state departments and local authorities.

View

This does beg the question as to what exactly the purpose of the public service is supposed to be. If we can't define that clearly then we are going nowhere.

Jaysoose

kceire wrote: »

How can it deemed toe valid criticism when the poster in question doesn't post facts. He mentions things like "let he PS strike, but don't expect the tax payer to pick up the tab" , if he had done his homework or looked into the rant he posted he would realise the PS staff don't get paid by the government when on strike.


He mentions whining and moaning but I don't see PS staff moaning, only defending faceless posts on here, sure aren't PS safe signed up to the CPA to allow for change, redeployment etc etc which is already happening on many state departments and local authorities.

No doubt some of the posts are sweeping generalisatons but to be fair they are the posts that get repsonded to while valid questions are often ignored so the PS bashing argument can be used.

The CPA is obviously not delivering on its promises fast enough or with enough transparency for the imf, we are still talking about the same issues every day yet no visible changes seem to have been made.

P. Breathnach

Jaysoose wrote: »

This is part of the problem as well any critsism of the public service however valid is deemed PS bashing, all people want is the ps to accept that there is a problem and move toward a resolution.

I have no objection to criticism of the public service if some reasonable effort is made to make it into a valid criticism. That can be at any level, from the smallest detail of administration to macro-consideration of a function such as healthcare provision.

But evidence-free rhetorical attacks are not a useful contribution to discussion; similarly for the anecdotal stuff with no verifiable or falsifiable content (although I understand that people are sometimes constrained by professional obligations from giving details). Unsubstantiated attacks can have the opposite effect to what is intended, because they often drive people into their bunkers.

amen

After reading this post I am just amazed at short memories of the boards members. Everyone is talking about the CPA and what it is mean to do but we all seem to have forgotten that benchmarking exercises over the last years were meant to have delivered a lot of the items in the CPA.

As for the ps not fir for purposes just like any business there are some parts that are very efficient and some that are not.

The problem is identifying those that are not and reforming them.

It is not just about the people though we should also be looking at the business process and seeing if any are out of date, inefficient etc and improving those.

Lu Tze

Well without delving too deeply, local authorities are not fit for purpose. I have worked among them, and ignoring lack of efficiencies etc. the actual system is failing. They should be self sustaining, self funded local government - and not dependent on central government funding.

Steps towards making them independent in this way (water charges, rates , whatever) will allow them progress where they can tackle other difficulties or failures they have.

P. Breathnach

Lu Tze wrote: »

Well without delving too deeply, local authorities are not fit for purpose....

That's the sort of post about which I have been complaining. Why not delve a little, and give a basis for your judgement?

MagicSean

View wrote: »

This does beg the question as to what exactly the purpose of the public service is supposed to be. If we can't define that clearly then we are going nowhere.

The public service is supposed to provide services that would not be profitable for the private sector (social welfare and government) as well as services that would be best kept under government control (things like the emergency services and prisons).

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's something of a fashionable phrase. Not so long ago we had discussion of the FG claim that the Dept. of Finance was not fit for purpose.

It's a silly, meaningless, expression unless you can:
(1) set out clearly what the purpose actually is;
(2) show that an organisation is failing to deliver satisfactorily in relation to its purpose;
(3) come to understand the reasons for any failure to deliver.

Can we start from this one? :rolleyes:
http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/

sarumite

k_mac wrote: »

The public service is supposed to provide services that would not be profitable for the private sector (social welfare and government) as well as services that would be best kept under government control (things like the emergency services and prisons).

Although the mechanisms of distributing social welfare could be privatised and some government services could also be privatised. Contracts could be awarded by the government to companies to do the work and would bring in some healthy competition for these contracts which could help reign in inefficiencies. It would also help relieve the government of much of its pension burden, thus could save the tax payer money.

P. Breathnach

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can we start from this one? :rolleyes:
http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/

Start what?

View

k_mac wrote: »

The public service is supposed to provide services that would not be profitable for the private sector (social welfare and government) as well as services that would be best kept under government control (things like the emergency services and prisons).

That's certainly one definition - there is no requirement in it though that the services are actually provided though, is there? It is a case of "supposed to provide", not "must/will/shall provide".

Gumbo

Lu Tze wrote: »

Well without delving too deeply, local authorities are not fit for purpose. I have worked among them, and ignoring lack of efficiencies etc. the actual system is failing. They should be self sustaining, self funded local government - and not dependent on central government funding.

Steps towards making them independent in this way (water charges, rates , whatever) will allow them progress where they can tackle other difficulties or failures they have.

More of the same? Faceless posts and rants.
What evidence is there that LA's are not fit for purpose?

For exame Dublin city council has reduced funding every year since 2009 and is self supporting to a degree. It will onl receive 80m euro in 2011 from the local government fund which is not alot but t is dropping year on year and will continue to do so.

Dublin city council wages and pensions are not paid from the exchequer but from the councils own budget and fro. It's on income measures which include rates, home loans and rents, specific services while it's also worth noting that DCC have reduced commercial rates 2 years in a row to try help business in the city centre.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

Although the mechanisms of distributing social welfare could be privatised and some government services could also be privatised. Contracts could be awarded by the government to companies to do the work and would bring in some healthy competition for these contracts which could help reign in inefficiencies. It would also help relieve the government of much of its pension burden, thus could save the tax payer money.

Your talking about outsourcing government services basically.

In theory it could be done, has potential issues and this wouldnt be the easiest option to implement.

There would have to be a hell of a lot of planning to ensure on switchover of services we find out the company cant do what they said they would.

As can happen with outsourcing contracts.

Accountability becomes an issue as well.

The contract would have to opened up to all EC countries for tendering.
The potential awarding of these contracts could then become a major political issue.
Imagine if the contract was awarded to a german french or English company, the low value rags like the indo would go to town on a story like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Your talking about outsourcing government services basically.

In theory it could be done, has potential issues and this wouldnt be the easiest option to implement.

There would have to be a hell of a lot of planning to ensure on switchover of services we find out the company cant do what they said they would.

As can happen with outsourcing contracts.

Accountability becomes an issue as well.

The contract would have to opened up to all EC countries for tendering.
The potential awarding of these contracts could then become a major political issue.
Imagine if the contract was awarded to a german french or English company, the low value rags like the indo would go to town on a story like that.

I agree with everything you are saying.

However not all services would be out sourced and not all out sourcing would be done at the same time. Many/most of the people doing the job would probably have their contracts transferred to the new organisation so that there is a certain amount of harmonisation.

Accountability is an issue as it is. Obvioulsy there would be people overseeing that the contract is being implemented properly as with any contract.

Its true that the contract would be open to any EU member, however if the company taking the contract can do the job at cheaper price than the government then its good for the tax payer and if not, then its probably not a service worth outsourcing.

What the indo writes doesn't have much muscle now, I don't see that changing.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

I agree with everything you are saying.

However not all services would be out sourced and not all out sourcing would be done at the same time. Many/most of the people doing the job would probably have their contracts transferred to the new organisation so that there is a certain amount of harmonisation.

Accountability is an issue as it is. Obvioulsy there would be people overseeing that the contract is being implemented properly as with any contract.

Its true that the contract would be open to any EU member, however if the company taking the contract can do the job at cheaper price than the government then its good for the tax payer and if not, then its probably not a service worth outsourcing.

What the indo writes doesn't have much muscle now, I don't see that changing.

Even without the indo there are many political groupings who would find some objection to a foreign entity controlling state data.

The harmonisation of staff is itself not an easy issue using examples from the private sector.
Would normally involve incentivised retiremment schemes.
Incentives for staff to move and except new contracts.

Who pays these becomes another issue for the government to risk leaving themselves open to criticism (because it would most likely be them).

The biggest issue with these types of strategies is mainly with Government motivation to persue it to its end.

With private companies and these types of outsourcing which can as easily be successes or just as easily failures, there may be objections at board level and this will need a project champion to push it along if its to succeed.

For the government this issue will be judged in the media and the public eye and when it hits its first rough patch(and it will) and the media spotlight is on it, what TD will risk their political future to come out and pubically champion it?

ftnbase

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is he correct and what inofrmation is he using to make his decision?


I work in the public service and I try my best to make the area that I serve a better place. Comments from Brendan Howlin is an insult to me and plently more like me. I am willing to resign if Howlin is willing to confirm that my section is not fit for purpose.

Brendan give us a list of the parts of public service which are not fit for service.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Even without the indo there are many political groupings who would find some objection to a foreign entity controlling state data.

The harmonisation of staff is itself not an easy issue using examples from the private sector.
Would normally involve incentivised retiremment schemes.
Incentives for staff to move and except new contracts.

Who pays these becomes another issue for the government to risk leaving themselves open to criticism (because it would most likely be them).

The biggest issue with these types of strategies is mainly with Government motivation to persue it to its end.

With private companies and these types of outsourcing which can as easily be successes or just as easily failures, there may be objections at board level and this will need a project champion to push it along if its to succeed.

For the government this issue will be judged in the media and the public eye and when it hits its first rough patch(and it will) and the media spotlight is on it, what TD will risk their political future to come out and pubically champion it?

I again, I agree. Though ultimately, and especially now, money talks. IF outsourcing creates competition that creates a leaner more efficeint service to the public in long term the idea could gain traction.

I am not advocating that it should or would happen, merely that while the Government should ensure services are provided it doesn't necessarily have to be the one providing those services. There will always be people who focus on the drawbacks of such outsourcing while ignoring the advantages as people in general do not like change, however change is inevitable and isn't always a bad thing.

fliball123

ftnbase wrote: »

Is he correct and what inofrmation is he using to make his decision?


I work in the public service and I try my best to make the area that I serve a better place. Comments from Brendan Howlin is an insult to me and plently more like me. I am willing to resign if Howlin is willing to confirm that my section is not fit for purpose.

Brendan give us a list of the parts of public service which are not fit for service.

and everytime a public sector employee gets an annual increment or pulls a sickie for not being sick, or a civil servants takes his/her day off for annual leave, its a an insult to me and the other 1.5 odd million people working and paying tax in the private sector...God even the union totting Labour parties are turning on the p.s ...It doesnt look good guys

20Cent

Howlin should make it clear what exactly he is referring to.

ftnbase

fliball123 wrote: »

and everytime a public sector employee gets an annual increment or pulls a sickie for not being sick, or a civil servants takes his/her day off for annual leave, its a an insult to me and the other 1.5 odd million people working and paying tax in the private sector...God even the union totting Labour parties are turning on the p.s ...It doesnt look good guys

Is a civil servant not entitled to annual leave? Do you, as a private sector employee, feel guilty about taking annual leave?

fliball123

ftnbase wrote: »

Is a civil servant not entitled to annual leave? Do you, as a private sector employee, feel guilty about taking annual leave?

sorry I misquoted I meant annual leave for the queens birthday...why should they be entitled to that

20Cent

fliball123 wrote: »

sorry I misquoted I meant annual leave for the queens birthday...why should they be entitled to that

Their not.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

I again, I agree. Though ultimately, and especially now, money talks. IF outsourcing creates competition that creates a leaner more efficeint service to the public in long term the idea could gain traction.

I am not advocating that it should or would happen, merely that while the Government should ensure services are provided it doesn't necessarily have to be the one providing those services. There will always be people who focus on the drawbacks of such outsourcing while ignoring the advantages as people in general do not like change, however change is inevitable and isn't always a bad thing.

Outsourcing isnt perhaps the route to take.

The government could look at centralising sevices agin, I think most can accept that de-centralisation was a vote winning exercise by Fianna Fail.

Centralising services would obviously reduce costs why run three offices when you can run one larger. Political motivation is key here, remember that many of government departments moved to isolated locations and the money to local commmunity was a boon, houses were built and so on.
Again which TD's want to be seen to champion this destruction of these small communities.

One area the government could consider is a government cloud and centralising a lot of IT services, this comes with massive cost ( massive potential too).
Again this money isnt necessarilly going to go back into the irish economy even though much of the expertise is here.
Euro wide tendering again.

It really requires this change to be lead by the government with a plan, the nature of the croke park agreement wont lead to the best reform.
This should be a government iniative. Our elected representatives should drive this, otherwise no matter what happens in refomr terms the public service can never escape from being accussed of really running the country.

ftnbase

fliball123 wrote: »

sorry I misquoted I meant annual leave for the queens birthday...why should they be entitled to that

What part of annual leave is related to Queens Birthday?

fliball123

ftnbase wrote: »

What part of annual leave is related to Queens Birthday?

Well it used to be the kings birthday but as the queen is alive check this out

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/22/ireland

RobbieTheRobber

[/THREAD]

:rolleyes:

ftnbase

Great
If I was getting a day off for the Queens Birthday I would be upset but since it is teh Kings Birthday I do not feel so bad!!!!!

I agree that we have a very inefficient public service but if you try to weed them out the weeds will remain in place and the best crops will be gone. Been there have the ee-shirt.

femur61

ftnbase wrote: »

Is he correct and what inofrmation is he using to make his decision?


I work in the public service and I try my best to make the area that I serve a better place. Comments from Brendan Howlin is an insult to me and plently more like me. I am willing to resign if Howlin is willing to confirm that my section is not fit for purpose.

Brendan give us a list of the parts of public service which are not fit for service.

In the UK nurses are not allowed to continously work Sundays and bank holidays like they do here. My friend is a social worker, works part time here and part time in NI, she can't beleive the rate she gets here. I know little change has been implemented in HSE, I work for them.

RobbieTheRobber

femur61 wrote: »

In the UK nurses are not allowed to continously work Sundays and bank holidays like they do here. My friend is a social worker, works part time here and part time in NI, she can't beleive the rate she gets here. I know little change has been implemented in HSE, I work for them.

In the UK It is illegal to stand within one hundred yards of a ruling monarch if you are not wearing any socks.

http://www.thealarm.org.uk/articles/strange-laws-in-the-uk.html

mcmoustache

k_mac wrote: »

The public sector needs a complete overhaul of all departments from the top down. With proper redeployment and retraining of staff and reform of policies and procedures then the public sector could provide a better, more efficient and cheaper service in more areas without the need to make anyone redundant.

Just as an example: Find 20 staff who are no longer needed in their areas. Give them two weeks of training in social welfare legislation and benefits. Assign a Garda liason to them and have them investigate fraudulant claims. They should be able to cover their wages if they do a half decent job of eliminating fraudulant claims and claiming back money.

This is from early in the thread but it's one of the most sensible ideas I have ever seen expressed with regard to public sector reform.

I'd love to see this and similar ideas implemented. Is there a reason why we can't? Would unions accept it?

Gumbo

mcmoustache wrote: »

This is from early in the thread but it's one of the most sensible ideas I have ever seen expressed with regard to public sector reform.

I'd love to see this and similar ideas implemented

this in theory is already happening, mayne not in the exact departments as highlighted above but people are being redeployed.

MagicSean

kceire wrote: »

this in theory is already happening, mayne not in the exact departments as highlighted above but people are being redeployed.

But will the current redeployment bring any savings or will it just strenghten the weaker departments with no real overall change. This is where the CPA will fail. It doesn't seem to include any big change in structure, policy or procedure.

Gumbo

k_mac wrote: »

But will the current redeployment bring any savings or will it just strenghten the weaker departments with no real overall change. This is where the CPA will fail. It doesn't seem to include any big change in structure, policy or procedure.

i dont know is the correct answer to that. but i do know one guy that was redeployed from a 33k job to a 40k job on paper because of his experience and he didnt get the increased salary, its simply a side step and you stay on your existing salary and salary scale if applicable, so i suppose it would save money on that side of things.

but he was transferred to a dept that was hit badly by early retiremnets and they were reduced to a skeltical staff and could not produce the work required, hence they were screaming for staff.

will the CPA work? depends if the older/institutionalised/management staff can facilitate it and adopt to it like the younger more recent PS additions.