Tag Archives: vanguard

Study and purpose: Systems thinking and public services

Darllenwch y flogbost yn Gymraeg

How can Systems Thinking be applied to public services? Dyfrig Williams reflects on what he learnt from reading “The Whitehall Effect.”

Inspired by conversations with Kelly Doonan and the GovCamp Cymru Books Channel on Slack, I’ve recently finished reading John Seddon’s “The Whitehall Effect”. The book is billed as being “an uncompromising account of the way Whitehall has systematically and perversely made public services worse”, so I wasn’t expecting a light and breezy read. He’s also fairly scathing about the role of audit and inspection, so I’m not entirely sure that he’d want to be stuck in a lift with me. Having said that, I’m pretty sure he’d like to have a good conversation with me about it. Here’s what I learnt from the book:


Vanguard's model of better thinking, where measures are derived from purpose, which liberates methodRecently, the Good Practice Exchange held our first team away day in order to give us the space to think about whether we are working as effectively as we could be. There was some discussion about how we measure success, which is something that I’ve thought a fair bit about since my previous role, where funders’ targets led to me counting things that didn’t really indicate service improvement. I ended up measuring things like numbers of subscribers to our newsletter. We were asked to do this because it was an easy thing to measure, which contrasts with the difficult task of evidencing actual service change. Seddon’s point is that such thinking creates a defacto purpose (getting more subscribers) instead of the actual purpose (facilitating improvement). By deriving measures from the customer’s perspective of the organisation’s purpose, we measure things that matter.

Applying this to our work, if we measured success by the number of delegates that attend our events, we might stop doing work on things like Open Standards and focus on popular topics instead, even though we know that their use supports public service integration. Our real measures should be derived from our purpose, which is to help public services to improve and to deliver better services. This means looking at outcomes rather than outputs – we need to continue our evaluation approach where we evidence how our work has led to public service improvement.

Learning from…. studying

John Seddon reflects on the Toyota Production System in the book. He talks about how the tools from the process have been applied as part of a lean methodology to gain savings.

To give you a bit of background, Toyota developed the Andon Cord, which empowers employees to stop production when a defect is found and call for help. This flew in the face of conventional thinking, as people thought this would slow productivity. Which it did initially, before they started producing their products faster, cheaper, and more reliably.

What Seddon counsels against is putting those tools into practice without first understanding the context that people are working in, which is particularly true in complex public service environments. We’ve previously blogged on how the Cynefin Framework can be used to better understand the application of these tools when the relationship between cause and effect is muddy.

So how did Toyota put this into practice? Seddon talks about how Ohno would “draw a chalk circle on the factory floor and tell his managers to stand there and study the system in action, on the ground.” This study phase is something that is rarely given meaningful resources in the public sector, but it’s something that organisations like Ricoh UK are doing through the Gemba Mat and the Government Digital Service is doing by focussing on user needs.

This struck a chord with me, because our team’s founding principles are that one size does not fit all, and that people should look to adapt, not adopt the approaches we share. The study phase then is key to understanding how any learning from the Good Practice Exchange’s work can be put into practice. To revert back to the Toyota example, setting up an Andon Cord won’t improve the quality of cars in and of itself. The thinking behind the cord needs to be put into practice too. The same results can’t be expected without the right mind-set or if the organisation hasn’t taken the appropriate steps to empowering staff.

Where do we go next?

If you’d like a bit more information on the study phase, then Simon Pickthall has written a great post for us on how studying mitigates risk. He’s also previously looked at how Vanguard use normative experiences to encourage buy-in in another excellent post.

If you’d like to see examples of how Welsh public services are putting Systems thinking into practice, Dilwyn Williams of Gwynedd Council shared with us how they’re doing just that, and we also shared how Monmouthshire Council used the FISH approach (Find Individiual Solutions Here) at our Prevention seminar. The below video is a great overview of what they’re doing.

As for me, I’ll be thinking about thinking! I’m going to think about how we apply this study phase to our work, and also relay some of this thinking around measures into our evaluation approaches. As we work to improve public services, it’s important that we walk the talk, and also that our measures really are derived from purpose if we’re going to effectively support organisations in Wales to deliver better public services.

How studying mitigates risk

Darllenwch y flogbost yn Gymraeg

The Auditor General for Wales encourages well managed risk taking at Good Practice Exchange events. Ahead of the Good Practice Exchange’s work on well managed risk, Simon Pickthall shares some information on Vanguard’s approach.

A photo of Simon Pickthall from Vanguard Consulting

Simon Pickthall from Vanguard Consulting

We are facing unprecedented financial pressures, coupled with the practical implications of working more closely with partners.

In this environment, it is difficult to imagine taking well-managed risks. The contradiction of funding pressures necessitating being radical in our thinking, while funding pressures making radical thinking seem extremely risky can pull us in different directions simultaneously.

However, being radical in our thinking is not a risky endeavour if undertaken with good method.

We often find ourselves in meetings, discussing radical service design and implementation. These meetings are organised around monthly updates, and quarterly reporting schedules. Working parties are dispatched to work out the logistics and build the plan. The plan is scrutinised by different leadership tiers in different organisations.

This process is intended to mitigate risk, and cover all the angles. It can also feel like a very long time until anything is started. When it is started, it can feel not quite as radical as our original ambitions, and existing system conditions (budgets, procedures, policies and authorisation limits) can remain. This is argued to be to ensure risk is covered, but it also severely restricts the radical nature of our service redesign.

However, there is an alternative method – study the system as it currently works. This is often seen as merely information gathering, and just a precursor to starting our radical service redesign on the ground. Studying is, in fact, essential and, when undertaken using good method, gets truly radical redesigns off the ground much quicker.

The method by which you undertake the study phase is crucial, to avoid recreating the problems in the new system that exist in the current system.

Change starts at Check; a structured method for understanding the ‘what and why’ of current performance as a system. This builds knowledge of where and how to act. The model for Check (below) outlines the key data to be collected.

A diagram of Vanguard's 'Check' Process, which shows learning begins with customers

Customer/citizen demands on services fall into two broad types:

  • Value Demand: this is demand we want, that is of value to customers/citizens;
  • Failure Demand: demand caused by a failure of the system to do something or do something right for the customer/citizen.

Capability is a measure of how well the organisation achieves its purpose. Prior to any decisions being taken about changes to the work, knowledge about current capability must be established. The study of Flow and System Conditions involves collecting data about how easy/difficult it is for the customer/citizen to get something done and how the system currently operates. The logic of the current management thinking is revealed and the impact of thinking on performance is clear. All of the data collected during Check is used to build a system picture to describe the ‘what and why’ of current performance.  Thus, uncertainty and risk are designed out of the change process.

The system picture developed in Check helps in the formulation of a plan to take action on the system in a way that will deliver predictable performance improvement. At this stage, leaders are in a position to make an informed choice about whether to move to the next stage – Plan.

This next stage involves a period of experimental redesign using systems principles: designing against demand and understanding the value work informs all decision-making. The objective is to drive out waste and establish perfect flow.

Using the Model for Check, therefore, we can not only understand crucial data, but also our existing system conditions and logics that constrain the current system. In addition, studying also provides the required information to make any radical service redesign less risky – studying reveals the obvious difficulties in the current system, and provides a set of principles to be used in the new system. The service redesign becomes, then, a test of a hypothesis, rather than a leap into the unknown. It is a leap of fact, not a leap of faith.

The time taken to understand this study phase can vary between systems, but a good overview can usually be obtained over a course of a few days. As such, when the leaders undertake this study phase, they experience the key issues that they will need to tackle and build a desire to change the system quickly.

Given this, rather than spend time in meetings discussing the plans for radical service redesign, as leaders you can get into the work and apply the model for Check. Very rapidly you will have understood your system, and built a plan for radical change in thinking and therefore service redesign. In addition, this will be a plan based on knowledge, not faith – a far less risky approach.

Change Thinking – Change Lives

Simon Pickthall worked in the public sector in Wales for many years before forming Vanguard Consulting Wales in 2007, working with the renowned management thinker, Professor John Seddon. Simon has been fortunate to have worked with many leaders to help them understand their organisations using the Vanguard Method –  and improve them as a consequence. Simon was privileged enough to work on the Munro Review of Child Protection, and is committed to helping the public, private and third sectors transform public services in Wales.

07951 481878

How do we encourage buy-in to a multi-agency approach from partners?

Simon Pickthall from Vanguard Consulting led a workshop on how to redesign services across different organisations at our event on Designing effective services for frequent users. In this post, Simon looks at how we can work together to improve the services that people receive.

A photo of Simon Pickthall from Vanguard Consulting

Simon Pickthall from Vanguard Consulting

This question is a very common one. Often, people have been trying for years to encourage partners to work together to tackle common difficulties. However, these efforts are often very frustrating, and time-consuming, despite most people recognising it is a sensible idea. In addition, solutions and approaches that have vast academic support over many years are often not taken forward by organisations.

There is a key reason why trying to persuade others to do something different is very difficult – our assumption is that we need to persuade people through rational means.

Examples of rational approaches are reports, meetings, classroom sessions, slideshows, workshops, conversations, etc. They involve talking to another person and trying to persuade them to do something, or stop doing something. These approaches are extremely common in multi-agency discussions, where schedules of meetings are used to take forward thoughts and plans.

The difficulty with rational approaches is that you are either preaching to the converted – making them feel patronised, or annoying people who don’t agree with you. If somebody does not agree, no argument, quantity of data, or research will change their mind. I am sure we have all experienced this during our lives.

An alternative approach is to be coercive – ‘do this or you will receive punishment, more hassle, etc.’. Equally, ‘do this and you will get a reward’ is a form of coercion.

The difficulty with coercion, is that people will only do what they need to do to avoid the punishment or get the reward. You have not changed their viewpoint or created commitment to change. As such, progress can be extremely slow, with very little momentum.

An alternative, more effective way of helping people agree to work together, is for them to share, what we call, a normative experience. A normative experience can be described as experiencing something directly for yourself. For example, running through a series of case files from various organisations showing what it feels like for a person to go through our systems. Visiting people in their home to ask them about their experiences of our various systems is also powerful. For those interested in the origins of this approach, it’s worth reading ‘The Planning of Change‘.

The advantage of normative change is that people tend to have an emotional reaction to what they see and experience. This sticks with them, and produces a powerful commitment to change. As such, the priority of the multi-agency approach becomes higher, as the individuals wish to solve the problems they have witnessed.

Therefore, commitment to the obstacles to multi-agency approaches are tackled more swiftly. Of course, it is important that those with the authority to tackle the obstacles in each organisation undertake the normative experience, and you have a proven Method to undertake the changes that are needed once everybody has agreed. It is no good taking people on a normative experience without a Method to solve the problems they discover. The website below is a great start in exploring Method. In addition, the book Responsibility and Public Services by Richard Davis is a clear and informative blueprint in taking this work forward.

Given this, you may wish to reflect on your strategy for encouraging multi-agency buy-in. You may want to explore moving from attempting to persuade people rationally, to designing normative experiences for the leaders involved. This may have a dramatic effect on the pace of change.

Change Thinking – Change Lives

Simon Pickthall worked in the public sector in Wales for many years before forming Vanguard Consulting Wales in 2007, working with the renowned management thinker, Professor John Seddon. Simon has been fortunate to have worked with many leaders to help them understand their organisations using the Vanguard Method – and improve them as a consequence. Simon was privileged enough to work on the Munro Review of Child Protection, and is committed to helping the public, private and third sectors transform public services in Wales.

07951 481878

Sut allwn annog partneriaid i gefnogi dull gweithredu amlasiantaeth?

Arweiniodd Simon Pickthall o Vanguard Consulting weithdy yn ein digwyddiad ar Ddylunio gwasanaethau effeithiol ar gyfer aml-ddefnyddwyr. Isod mae Simon yn edrych ar sut y gallwn weithio gyda’n gilydd i wella’r gwasanaethau y mae pobl yn eu derbyn.

Llun o Simon Pickthall o Vanguard Consulting

Simon Pickthall o Vanguard Consulting

Mae’r cwestiwn yn un cyffredin. Mae pobl wedi bod yn ceisio annog partneriaid ers blynyddoedd i gydweithio er mwyn mynd i’r afael ag anawsterau cyffredin. Fodd bynnag, yn aml mae’r ymdrechion hyn yn rhwystredig iawn, ac yn llafurus, er gwaetha’r ffaith bod y rhan fwyaf o bobl yn cydnabod ei fod yn syniad synhwyrol. Yn ogystal, nid yw datrysiadau a dulliau gweithredu sydd â llu o gefnogaeth academaidd dros nifer o flynyddoedd yn cael eu gweithredu gan sefydliadau.

Mae rheswm amlwg pam bod ceisio perswadio eraill i wneud rhywbeth gwahanol yn anodd iawn – ein tybiaeth yw bod angen i ni berswadio pobl drwy ddulliau rhesymegol.

Enghreifftiau o ddulliau rhesymegol yw adroddiadau, cyfarfodydd, sesiynau ystafell ddosbarth, sioeau sleidiau, gweithdai, sgyrsiau ac ati. Maent yn cynnwys siarad â pherson arall a cheisio ei berswadio i wneud rhywbeth, neu i roi’r gorau i wneud rhywbeth. Mae’r dulliau gweithredu hyn yn hynod o gyffredin mewn trafodaethau amlasiantaeth, lle defnyddir amserlenni cyfarfodydd i ddatblygu syniadau a chynlluniau.

Y drafferth gyda dulliau gweithredu rhesymegol yw eich bod naill ai’n pregethu i’r cadwedig – gan wneud iddynt deimlo eu bod yn cael eu trin yn nawddoglyd, neu’n codi gwrychyn y rhai nad ydynt yn cytuno â chi. Os bydd rhywun yn anghytuno, ni fydd unrhyw ddadl, data nac ymchwil yn newid ei feddwl. Rwy’n siŵr ein bod i gyd wedi profi hyn yn ystod ein bywydau.

Dull gweithredu amgen yw bod yn gymhellol – ‘gwnewch hyn neu cewch eich cosbi, mwy o drafferth, ac ati’. Yn yr un modd, mae ‘gwnewch hyn a chewch eich gwobrwyo’ yn ddull cymhellol.

Y drafferth gyda’r dull cymhellol yw y bydd pobl ond yn gwneud yr hyn sy’n rhaid iddynt ei wneud er mwyn osgoi’r gosb neu gael y wobr. Nid ydych wedi newid eu safbwynt nac wedi creu ymrwymiad i newid. Fel y cyfryw, gall cynnydd fod yn araf tu hwnt, heb fawr ddim momentwm.

Ffordd arall, fwy effeithiol o helpu pobl i gytuno i gydweithio, yw iddynt rannu’r hyn a elwir yn brofiad normadol. Gellir disgrifio profiad normadol fel profi rhywbeth yn uniongyrchol eich hun. Er enghraifft, rhedeg drwy gyfres o ffeiliau achos o amrywiol sefydliadau i ddangos sut brofiad ydyw i berson fynd drwy ein systemau. Mae ymweld â phobl yn eu cartrefi i ofyn iddynt am eu profiadau wrth ddefnyddio ein gwahanol systemau hefyd yn bwerus. I’r rhai sydd â diddordeb yn nharddiad y dull hwn o weithredu, mae’n werth darllen The Planning of Change.

Mantais newid normadol yw bod pobl yn dueddol o brofi ymateb emosiynol i’r hyn maent yn ei weld a’i brofi. Mae’n aros gyda nhw, ac yn creu ymrwymiad pwerus i newid. Fel y cyfryw, mae blaenoriaeth dull gweithredu amlasiantaeth yn codi, wrth i unigolion ddymuno datrys y problemau maent wedi bod yn dyst iddynt.

Felly, eir i’r afael â’r rhwystrau i ddulliau gweithredu amlasiantaeth yn gynt. Wrth gwrs, mae’n bwysig bod y rhai sydd â’r awdurdod i fynd i’r afael â’r rhwystrau hyn ymhob sefydliad yn ymgymryd â’r profiad normadol, a bod gennych Ddull profedig o ymgymryd â’r newidiadau sydd eu hangen unwaith y bydd pawb yn gytûn. Nid oes diben mynd â phobl ar brofiad normadol heb Ddull o ddatrys y problemau y maent yn eu canfod. Mae’r wefan isod yn fan gwych i ddechrau ystyried Dull. Yn ogystal, mae’r llyfr Responsibility and Public Services gan Richard Davis yn lasbrint clir a llawn gwybodaeth ar gyfer mynd â’r gwaith hwn yn ei flaen.

O ystyried hyn, efallai yr hoffech fyfyrio ar eich strategaeth ar gyfer annog cefnogi dull gweithredu amlasiantaeth. Efallai yr hoffech ystyried symud o geisio perswadio pobl mewn ffordd resymegol, i gynllunio profiadau normadol ar gyfer yr arweinwyr cysylltiedig. Gall hyn gael effaith ddramatig ar gyflymder y newid.

Newid Meddylfryd – Newid Bywydau

Gweithiodd Simon Pickthall yn y sector cyhoeddus yng Nghymru am sawl blwyddyn cyn ffurfio Vanguard Consulting Wales yn 2007, gan weithio gyda’r Athro John Seddon, sy’n enwog am fod yn feddyliwr rheoli. Mae Simon wedi bod yn ffodus i weithio gyda llawer o arweinwyr er mwyn eu helpu i ddeall eu sefydliadau gan ddefnyddio Dull Vanguard – a’u gwella o ganlyniad i hynny. Roedd Simon yn ddigon ffodus i weithio ar Adolygiad Munro o drefniadau Gwarchod Plant, ac mae’n ymrwymedig i helpu’r sector cyhoeddus, y sector preifat a’r trydydd sector i drawsnewid gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru.

07951 481878

Why we’re focusing on improving services for frequent users

A speech bubble with the title of Designing effective services for frequent usersWhy is the Good Practice Exchange at the Wales Audit Office running seminars that focus on frequent users? Dyfrig Williams outlines our thinking and how services can provide efficient citizen-centred public services.

The Good Practice Exchange at the Wales Audit Office decide on our programme of events based on the following criteria:

  • New legislation and other significant developments affecting public service delivery
  • Work undertaken by the Wales Audit Office
  • Topics that are identified through consultation with key stakeholders

In the case of our seminar on Designing effective services for frequent users, it was a combination of all three.


If you’ve attended any of our recent seminars, you’ll have heard the Auditor General for Wales talking about how the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act is a gamechanger for Welsh public services. Organisations are required to integrate and collaborate; to think about prevention and the long term; and to involve people.

The Social Services and Wellbeing Act reinforces this by focusing on people, wellbeing, prevention, partnership and integration. The current public service environment clearly supports public service delivery that centres on citizens. If you’re looking to revamp your service to meet this focus, then these acts provide a framework and a rationale for change.

Audit work

Our colleagues in the Health Audit team approached us to put a seminar together on Designing effective services for frequent users as they were reviewing emergency ambulance services commissioning. Fflur Jones wrote a great post for the Wales Audit Office on joining a Welsh ambulance crew for a night shift, where she says that:

“The calls ranged from the routine to the extreme: from a caller that did not require any urgent treatment who had contacted the service for the third time that night to a patient suffering life-changing injuries as a result of a road traffic collision. I’m assured that the life of a paramedic is never dull…..

“Calling an ambulance is not always the right choice and other alternatives, such as pharmacies and out of hours services can get patients seen quicker and allow ambulances to respond to the cases where they’re most needed. It also taught me that the need for the public sector to work together to provide better services and to provide services for unmet needs and to fill service gaps is greater than ever.”

The Good Practice Exchange have been working on our first piece of audit work on behaviour change, where we’ve worked with Good Practice Wales and a range of other organisations on festivals in Bangor and Swansea. Behaviour Change techniques can potentially improve public services when there are increasing demands placed upon them by enabling people to choose the right service in the right circumstance.

The Wales Audit Office’s Picture of Public Services report also paints a stark picture of the challenges that devolved public services’ face. The report shows that public services have faced significant and growing financial, demand and capacity pressures since the previous report in  2011. Some of the headline messages include that:

  • Organisations are in a position where they have to take well-managed risks to deliver sustainable solutions to financial and demand pressures on public services
  • there are difficult barriers to overcome in order to radically reshape services, including political and cultural barriers
  • ‘What gets measured gets managed’ – public services are increasingly adopting ‘outcome’ measures, but there remains a tendency to measure and manage how much activity is going on and how long it takes
  • public services need to work together through the difficult choices to understand the short and long-term impacts for the public and other public services, and to mitigate those impacts where possible.

From a purely economic perspective, the case for change is clear. Public services will continue to waste valuable resources unless we work together, resources that could be better spent to provide services that people actually want.

And to me that’s the crux of it – more than anything services need to be fit for purpose so that they provide what people really want. On my last day of working for Participation Cymru, I wrote that working with the Citizen’s Panel for Social Services had been the most fulfilling work that I had ever done. Seeing people actively challenge systems that had repeatedly let them down because they believed that things could and should be better was incredible. I’ve been lucky enough to work with some fantastic teams, projects and organisations since working for the Good Practice Exchange, but unfortunately these services are still the exception rather than the norm.

Working with key stakeholders

Every event that we run is developed in conjunction with a range of stakeholders, and this is no different. We’ll have speakers from local authorities, health boards, the Ambulance Service, Fire Service and the Older People’s Commissioner. More than anything though, the event will look to share good practice from delegates’ own experiences and will throw out issues that people are facing to the collective expertise at the event.

We’ll also be ensuring that the focus of the event is firmly on what people want from their services. When I was tasked with working on this event, I immediately thought of a workshop that Simon Pickthall from Vanguard delivered at our Reshaping Services with the public event. In this seminar Simon shared how traditional public service interventions had failed to meet people’s needs because inefficiencies were resulting from maintaining broken organisational processes. These inefficiencies become obvious when we think about how public services work – people are made to fit into organisational silos, instead of organisations working together to meet people’s needs. Simon gives a really good overview of some of what he’ll be talking about at 6:37 in the below video.

The Stoke-on-Trent case study in the Picture of Public Services report (p.108) is an example of the approach that Simon will share. But we won’t be telling people what to do or directing people to use particular methods. We don’t believe that one size fits all – we need to look at the good work that organisations are doing and think about how we might adapt those approaches to suit the needs of people in our areas. And if we can do that, then we’ll be better placed to deliver the best possible services for the people of Wales.

Pam rydyn ni’n ffocysu ar wella gwasanaethau i bobl sy’n defnyddio gwasanaethau’n rheolaidd

Llun o swigen siarad a'r teitl o Ddylunio gwasanaethau effeithiol ar gyfer aml-ddefnyddwyr

Pam fod Cyfnewidfa Arfer Da Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru yn cynnal seminarau sy’n canolbwyntio ar aml-ddefnyddwyr? Isod mae Dyfrig Williams yn amlinellu ein meddylfryd a pham mae gwasanaethau cyhoeddus effeithlon yn canolbwyntio ar ddinasyddion.

Mae rhaglen gwaith Cyfnewidfa Arfer Da Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru yn seiliedig ar y meini prawf canlynol:

  • Deddfwriaeth newydd a datblygiadau arwyddocaol sy’n effeithio ar ddarpariaeth gwasanaethau cyhoeddus
  • Gwaith a wnaed gan Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru
  • Pynciau sy’n cael eu nodi drwy ymgynghori â rhanddeiliaid allweddol

Yn achos ein seminar ar Ddylunio gwasanaethau effeithiol ar gyfer aml-ddefnyddwyr, roedd y cynllun yn gyfuniad o’r tri.


Os ydych chi wedi mynychu unrhyw un o’n seminarau diweddar, byddwch wedi clywed Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru yn siarad am sut mae Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol yn newid mawr ar gyfer gwasanaethau cyhoeddus Cymreig. Mae’r ddeddf yn meddwl ei fod yn ofynnol i sefydliadau i integreiddio a chydweithio; i feddwl am atal a’r tymor hir; ac i gynnwys pobl.

Mae Deddf Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol a Llesiant yn atgyfnerthu hyn drwy ganolbwyntio ar bobl, lles, atal, partneriaeth ac integreiddio. Mae’r amgylchedd gwasanaeth cyhoeddus cyfredol yn cefnogi gwasanaethau cyhoeddus sy’n canolbwyntio ar ddinasyddion. Os ydych chi’n edrych i ailwampio eich gwasanaeth er mwyn diwallu’r ffocws hyn, yna mae’r deddfau yma’n rhoi fframwaith a sail resymegol i chi dros newid.

Gwaith archwilio

Cysylltodd ein cydweithwyr o dîm Archwilio Iechyd â ni amdano’r cynnal y seminar yma ar Ddylunio gwasanaethau effeithiol ar gyfer aml-ddefnyddwyr achos roedden nhw’n gwneud gwaith archwilio ar sut mae cyrff yn comisiynu’r Gwasanaethau Ambiwlans ar frys. Ysgrifennodd Fflur Jones blogbost gwych ar gyfer Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru ar weithio gyda chriw ambiwlans Cymru am nos, lle dywedodd hi:

“Roedd y galwadau’n amrywio o’r arferol i’r eithafol: o’r person a ffoniodd nad oedd angen unrhyw driniaeth frys a oedd wedi cysylltu â’r gwasanaeth am y trydydd tro’r noson honno i glaf yn dioddef o anafiadau a oedd yn newid bywyd o ganlyniad i wrthdrawiad ar y ffordd. Cefais fy sicrhau nad yw bywyd parafeddyg byth yn ddiflas.

“Nid galw ambiwlans yw’r dewis cywir bob tro a gall dewisiadau amgen eraill, megis fferyllfeydd a gwasanaethau y tu allan i oriau ganiatáu i gleifion gael eu gweld yn gynt a chaniatáu i ambiwlansys ymateb i’r achosion sydd eu hangen fwyaf. Dysgodd i mi hefyd fod yr angen i’r sector cyhoeddus weithio gyda’i gilydd i ddarparu gwasanaethau gwell ac i ddarparu gwasanaethau i anghenion nas diwallwyd ac i lenwi bylchau yn y gwasanaeth mor bwysig ag erioed.”

Mae’r Gyfnewidfa Arfer Da hefyd wedi bod yn gweithio ar ein darn o waith archwilio cyntaf ar newid ymddygiad, lle rydym wedi gweithio gydag Arfer Da Cymru a sefydliadau eraill ar ddigwyddiadau ym Mangor ac Abertawe. Gall technegau Newid Ymddygiad gwella gwasanaethau cyhoeddus pan fo gofynion cynyddol arnynt drwy alluogi pobl i ddewis y gwasanaeth cywir ar yr adeg gywir.

Mae adroddiad Darlun o Wasanaethau Cyhoeddus Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru hefyd yn creu darlun llwm o’r heriau sy’n wynebu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus a ddatganolwyd. Mae’r adroddiad yn dangos bod gwasanaethau cyhoeddus wedi wynebu pwysau ariannol, galw a capasiti sylweddol a chynyddol ers yr adroddiad blaenorol yn 2011. Dyma rhai o’r prif negeseuon:

  • Mae sefydliadau mewn sefyllfa lle mae’n rhaid iddynt gymryd risgiau sydd wedi’u rheoli’n dda er mwyn diwygio gwasanaethau mewn ffordd radical i gael ateb cynaliadwy i’r pwysau sydd ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus o ran galw ac ariannu
  • Mae yna rwystrau i ail-lunio gwasanaethau mewn ffordd radical, gan gynnwys rhwystrau gwleidyddol a diwylliannol, ac mae angen gwaith caled i’w goresgyn
  • ‘Yr hyn sy’n cael ei fesur sy’n cael ei reoli’ – tra bod gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru yn mabwysiadu mesurau ‘canlyniadau’ yn fwyfwy, mae tuedd o hyd i fesur a rheoli faint o weithgarwch sy’n digwydd a faint o amser y mae’n ei gymryd.
  • Rhaid i wasanaethau cyhoeddus gydweithio drwy’r dewisiadau anodd, pennu blaenoriaethau clir a chyson, deall yr effeithiau byrdymor a hirdymor ar y cyhoedd a gwasanaethau cyhoeddus eraill a lliniaru’r effeithiau hynny lle y bo’n bosibl.

Felly o safbwynt economaidd mae’r achos dros newid yn glir. Bydd gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yn parhau i wastraffu adnoddau gwerthfawr os nad ydynt yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd i ddarparu gwasanaethau mae pobl wir eisiau.

Ac i mi dyma elfen graidd y mater – mae rhaid i wasanaethau fod yn addas i’w ddibenion er mwyn iddynt ddarparu beth y mae pobl wir eisiau. Ar fy niwrnod olaf o weithio i Gyfranogaeth Cymru ysgrifennais mai gweithio gyda’r Panel Dinasyddion ar gyfer Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol oedd y gwaith mwyaf boddhaol a wnes i yn fy mywyd. Roedd gweithio gyda phobl a oedd yn herio systemau achos roedden nhw’n meddwl y dylai ac y gallai pethau fod yn well yn anhygoel. Rydw i wedi bod yn ddigon ffodus i weithio gyda thimau, prosiectau a mudiadau gwych ers gweithio i’r Gyfnewidfa Arfer Da, ond yn anffodus mae’r gwasanaethau hyn yn dal i fod yn eithriad yn hytrach na’r arfer.

Gweithio gyda rhanddeiliaid allweddol

Mae pob un o’n digwyddiadau yn cael ei ddatblygu ar y cyd gyda rhanddeiliaid amrywiol, ac nid yw’r digwyddiad yma yn eithriad. Fe fydd yna siaradwyr o awdurdodau lleol, byrddau iechyd, Gwasanaeth Ambiwlans, y Gwasanaeth Tân a Chomisiynydd Pobl Hŷn. Ond yn fwy na dim, bydd y digwyddiad yn edrych i rannu arfer da o brofiadau cynadleddwyr ac fe fydd yna gyfle i edrych ar y materion y mae pobl yn eu hwynebu er mwyn gwneud y fwyaf o’r arbenigedd cyfunol sydd ar gael yn y digwyddiad.

Byddwn hefyd yn sicrhau bod ffocws y digwyddiad ar yr hyn y mae pobl am ei gael o wasanaethau. Meddyliais yn syth am weithdy yn ein seminar ar Ail-lunio Gwasanaethau gyda’r Cyhoedd wrth i mi roi’r digwyddiad at ei gilydd. Rhannodd Simon Pickthall o Vanguard sut mae ymyriadau traddodiadol wedi methu achos maent yn canolbwyntio ar gynnal prosesau sefydliadol. Mae hyn yn arwain at aneffeithlonrwydd. Mae’r aneffeithlonrwydd yma’n amlwg wrth i ni feddwl am sut mae gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yn gweithio – mae pobl yn ffitio i mewn i seilos mudiadau, yn hytrach na bod sefydliadau yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd i gwrdd ag anghenion pobl. Rhoddodd Simon drosolwg o’i weithdy am 06:37 yn y fideo isod.

Mae’r astudiaeth achos ar Stoke-on-Trent yn adroddiad Darlun o Wasanaethau Cyhoeddus (p.108) yn enghraifft o’r dull y bydd Simon yn rhannu. Gan ein bod ni’n gorff archwilio, ni fyddwn yn dweud wrth bobl beth i’w wneud neu ei chyfarwyddo i ddefnyddio dulliau penodol. Nid ydym yn credu mewn dull un maint i bawb – rhaid edrych ar y gwaith da y mae sefydliadau eraill yn ei wneud a meddwl am sut y gallem addasu’r dulliau hynny i weddu anghenion pobl yn ein hardaloedd. Ac os allant wneud hynny, yna fe fydd cyrff mewn sefyllfa well i gyflwyno’r gwasanaethau gorau posibl i bobl Cymru.