Getting the policy house in order: Giving Harrison clarity about what he needed to get done

Background

Harrison had recently been appointed to his position and quickly identified that the organisation needed to focus on its policy responsibilities. The organisation had been going through a significant change management process that resulted in both a functional and organisational restructure, staff movements and a revised strategic agenda. During this change there were limited staff to focus on policy and the organisation’s overall policy capacity and capability had substantially reduced.

This case study explores how we were able to conduct a policy audit in a timely manner so that Harrison had a clear understanding of what he needed to do to ensure his organisation met all the requirements of their upcoming accreditation.

Identifying the challenges

1. Harrison knew he had to get the policy suite in order but didn’t know where to start to tackle this problem efficiently and effectively.
   
   
2. Harrison identified that there wasn’t anyone in the organisation who had ‘ownership’ of the problem, nor did he have the policy capability in his team to do this work.
   
   
3. The organisation could not afford to fail accreditation.
   
   
4. The organisation’s policy suite was out of date, incomplete and did not reflect legislative and regulatory obligations.
   
   
5. The clock was ticking.
   

We recognised the importance of conducting a policy audit for Harrison. This would give him a clear picture of what was required and a roadmap of how to get there. Our audit included:

1. Clarifying the organisational and environmental context as the frame for the audit: this included two regulators, unions, their jurisdictional and Commonwealth legislative framework, the organisation’s governance structure and the decision-making hierarchy.
   
   
2. Mapping the ‘to be’ policy suite: the organisation’s policy requirements in accordance with their regulatory requirements and legislative framework were mapped, grouping policies as the auditors would expect to see them.
   
   
3. Mapping the ‘as is’ policy suite: reviewing the existing policy suite to build a thorough understanding of what was needed.
   
   
4. Regulatory and legislative review: two regulatory frameworks and three pieces of legislation relevant to this project were reviewed and mapped to the current policy suite to identify what work needed to be undertaken and in what timeframes.
   
   
5. Regulatory guidance notes: lifting the organisation’s awareness of guidance notes that the regulators provide to assist with policy development.
   

1. Governance structure: we provided a clear governance structure of the organisation’s lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility.
   
   
2. Policy suite ‘to be’ map: we developed a map of what the organisation’s policy suite should be based on regulatory and legislative requirements.
   
   
3. ‘As is’ policy suite map: we developed a map of what the current policy suite was. Overlaying the ‘as is’ and ‘to be’ policy maps clearly identified what Harrison had to get done to meet accreditation requirements.
   
   
4. Source of truth: we provided a regulatory and legislative checklist that Harrison could use to focus the organisation’s policy work.
   
   
5. Go to resource: we developed a simple tool that linked regulatory guidance notes to the ‘to be’ policy map so that Harrison had a sound policy development starting point.