So - 'supercop' Bill Bratton from New York is coming to tell us how to manage our gangs, is he? Thankfully, the post of Metropolitan Police Commissioner is only open to Brits, so our beleaguered police are spared the final humiliation of having an American tell them how to do their jobs. It's one of the few times I've felt grateful to Theresa May.
It's possible that Sir Hugh Orde, seeing that police work in the capital may be guided by someone essentially acting as a consultant, has decided that being Commissioner will be a sacrifice too far, and is sniping from the sidelines as well as he can - loudly supported by Boris Johnson, who always has an eye for political opportunism. I note that Bratton is Chair of security consultancy Knoll and it would be interesting to know what fee is being paid to him. Or indeed, the consultancy.
The fury of the Met, (who have reduced gun crime in London) can only be imagined at this move by David Cameron to bow to the popular demand for a crackdown. This demand, from an equally unpleasant mob now rampaging through the streets of England, is driven by powerful emotions against those people who have looted and caused criminal damage. The emotion is only to be expected; what's less to be expected is a knee jerk reaction from number 10.
Why someone to sort out 'gangs'? When everyone arrested by the courts has been processed, it will be interesting to see who, exactly, has been caught up in the riots. I would bet my rapidly shrinking savings that they're not all council house tenants, on the dole, or under the age of 21. Which begs the question - why this sort of expert?
And it also brought to mind the resigned anger of many people in organisations, who have a consultant thrust upon them. It may be that they're doing a good job, but perhaps more slowly than management wants, and in order to accelerate the programme, a consultant is parachuted in.
They often have the same sorts of issues that Bill Bratton will have; different experience, an outsider's view of the situation (which may not be right), a different culture. Plus, they will be facing the irritation of the existing staff who've been dealing with the situation for months, if not years.
The difference between a successful and an unsuccessful consultancy assignment is often down to the communication of the introduction of the consultant - and being hailed as an 'expert' can sometimes be the kiss of death. You can imagine existing employees folding their arms and sitting back, waiting to be impressed.
And this situation has made me understand why existing employees can be hostile towards consultants - you can see why when you look at the response of senior Met police officers who aren't short of experience. Hugh Orde helped deal with sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, for goodness' sake.
Bill Bratton hasn't helped himself in his interview in the Daily Telegraph in his positioning - tough guy coming to enforce order. From this 'know it all' stance, any movement looks like a climb-down, but really, a little humility wouldn't go amiss. The British don't, after all, subscribe to the idea of the wild west and a sheriff riding into to town to sort out the bad guys.
Sunday 14 August 2011
Saturday 13 August 2011
Calm down, dear - it's only a loft conversion...
This, more or less, what what my normally wonderful brother said to me after the latest potential show stopper to our loft conversion.
We'd applied for planning permission at the end of January, had it refused, re-submitted plans for permitted development (which moved the wall of our loft a whole six inches back from the edge of the existing wall) and finally - finally - got the all clear to start the work. Except of course for the solar panels which should have been on the plans for the original application, and weren't.
The man from the solar panel company told us our local authority was being difficult and unclear about the angle of the solar panels (to be above the line of the roof, or not to be above the line of the roof, that is the question) and we might need to go back for planning permission for the panels, rather than through permitted development. Which meant another twelve? eight? weeks which meant that we might need to pay for the scaffolding again if the main contractors had finished.
Then the builder queried the position of the steels supports - he was a bit worried that they might be going through the chimney stack. This might have been less irritating if the structural engineer hadn't airily dismissed our suggestions that he might visit us and look at the loft space. "We do work like this all the time" his email stated. "Our experience in these sort of houses should be sufficient." Our builder sucked his teeth and was unconvinced.
So far, we've been patronised by a variety of contractors - the floor fitter who told us the floor we'd chosen was too 'thick'; the structural engineer who did our calculations on the basis of his "extensive experience" without bothering to come and view the property - well, Wimbledon IS a long way from North London; and finally, our architect who suggested we were asking too many questions and taking up too much of his valuable time - which we had paid for.
All this from a bunch of - let's face it - blokes - who smiled benignly at us and told us not to worry our pretty little heads about it all. So far, our architect has submitted incomplete plans; the structural engineer has not taken into account the fact that our chimney breast isn't symmetrical and the steels don't fit where they are supposed to - as a result, we're having to have a 'bulkhead' which certainly isn't in the plans, to make it all work; and the flooring we've chosen is entirely appropriate given that we're having the office there. Perhaps this wouldn't be quite so galling if my partner and I were air heads. But we're not; we just no speaka da building lingo. Although I have to say, we're learning fast.
This frustrating experience had me thinking about words and meaning, laziness and power, exclusion and responsibility. For most people, to know the planning process isn't hard; it's on most local authority websites and most times, it's written in plain English. What's less explicable is the 'black box' of phrases such as "considering your application" which takes ten weeks in which you wonder just how much consideration your one-room dormer with an en suite actually warrants. Laziness in this sort of situation is an art form - from those who can't be bothered to explain in non-technical terms, to those who design the processes to be opaque and mysterious.
The power issues are just as prevalent - from builders who spout jargon to architects and structural engineers who don't translate because it suits them not to. That which needs detailed explanation will always command a fee. This can essentially reduce our involvement to discussions about the wallpaper, or the shape of the loo. And of course, without proper information, we are being asked to take ultimate responsibility without proper understanding.
Sadly, this sort of befuddlement is not limited to the building trade, it's everywhere. People who work together have their own jargon which serves as shorthand and saves time, and also binds people together as they recognise other people 'like them' speaking the same language.
Unfortunately, alongside these qualities it can also serve to exclude people and, if they accept their exclusion, they can also abdicate responsibility.
Given that this is our house, and our money, my partner and I have decided that either we get up to speed on the building world, or negotiations and discussions have to take longer as our various professionals explain in words a five year old could understand precisely what's happening, and the implications of our decisions. We've chosen the latter, but with some sneaky Internet work on the side to meet the builders half way. This enables us to share responsibility and the power inherent in the discussion is evenly spread.
Thankfully, our builders also make their own tea, most of the time.
We'd applied for planning permission at the end of January, had it refused, re-submitted plans for permitted development (which moved the wall of our loft a whole six inches back from the edge of the existing wall) and finally - finally - got the all clear to start the work. Except of course for the solar panels which should have been on the plans for the original application, and weren't.
The man from the solar panel company told us our local authority was being difficult and unclear about the angle of the solar panels (to be above the line of the roof, or not to be above the line of the roof, that is the question) and we might need to go back for planning permission for the panels, rather than through permitted development. Which meant another twelve? eight? weeks which meant that we might need to pay for the scaffolding again if the main contractors had finished.
Then the builder queried the position of the steels supports - he was a bit worried that they might be going through the chimney stack. This might have been less irritating if the structural engineer hadn't airily dismissed our suggestions that he might visit us and look at the loft space. "We do work like this all the time" his email stated. "Our experience in these sort of houses should be sufficient." Our builder sucked his teeth and was unconvinced.
So far, we've been patronised by a variety of contractors - the floor fitter who told us the floor we'd chosen was too 'thick'; the structural engineer who did our calculations on the basis of his "extensive experience" without bothering to come and view the property - well, Wimbledon IS a long way from North London; and finally, our architect who suggested we were asking too many questions and taking up too much of his valuable time - which we had paid for.
All this from a bunch of - let's face it - blokes - who smiled benignly at us and told us not to worry our pretty little heads about it all. So far, our architect has submitted incomplete plans; the structural engineer has not taken into account the fact that our chimney breast isn't symmetrical and the steels don't fit where they are supposed to - as a result, we're having to have a 'bulkhead' which certainly isn't in the plans, to make it all work; and the flooring we've chosen is entirely appropriate given that we're having the office there. Perhaps this wouldn't be quite so galling if my partner and I were air heads. But we're not; we just no speaka da building lingo. Although I have to say, we're learning fast.
This frustrating experience had me thinking about words and meaning, laziness and power, exclusion and responsibility. For most people, to know the planning process isn't hard; it's on most local authority websites and most times, it's written in plain English. What's less explicable is the 'black box' of phrases such as "considering your application" which takes ten weeks in which you wonder just how much consideration your one-room dormer with an en suite actually warrants. Laziness in this sort of situation is an art form - from those who can't be bothered to explain in non-technical terms, to those who design the processes to be opaque and mysterious.
The power issues are just as prevalent - from builders who spout jargon to architects and structural engineers who don't translate because it suits them not to. That which needs detailed explanation will always command a fee. This can essentially reduce our involvement to discussions about the wallpaper, or the shape of the loo. And of course, without proper information, we are being asked to take ultimate responsibility without proper understanding.
Sadly, this sort of befuddlement is not limited to the building trade, it's everywhere. People who work together have their own jargon which serves as shorthand and saves time, and also binds people together as they recognise other people 'like them' speaking the same language.
Unfortunately, alongside these qualities it can also serve to exclude people and, if they accept their exclusion, they can also abdicate responsibility.
Given that this is our house, and our money, my partner and I have decided that either we get up to speed on the building world, or negotiations and discussions have to take longer as our various professionals explain in words a five year old could understand precisely what's happening, and the implications of our decisions. We've chosen the latter, but with some sneaky Internet work on the side to meet the builders half way. This enables us to share responsibility and the power inherent in the discussion is evenly spread.
Thankfully, our builders also make their own tea, most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)