| Lighter touch | Effect |
| The scale of the review: |  |
| A proportionate approach to the conduct of reviews, concentrating most effort where the risk and/or the potential for improvement is greatest | Less demand on staff time; review activity to be undertaken only where it serves a purpose and is consistent with the scale of review |
| Member Involvement: | |
| New service review flow diagram agreed | Clearer Member involvement, easier to understand the process |
| Combining Member workshops to deal with reviews at a more strategic level, with shorter or no presentations | Fewer workshops; more effective use of Member time whilst ensuring that Members still have opportunity to raise issues and influence the lightness of touch required; saving on the cost of facilitation |
| Making options workshops essential only if there are significant options to discuss | Better use of Member time; more effective Member involvement; potential saving on the cost of facilitation |
| Consultation: | |
| Use of the Citizens’ Panel as the principal means for consulting the general public | Cost saving; better co-ordination of surveys |
| More realistic targeting of stakeholder groups, including fewer but more generic questionnaires | Cost saving on consultation; more effective use of staff time |
| Streamlining information gathering: | |
| Being clear early on in the review about what are the key review issues | Clearer direction; ‘seeing the wood for the trees’ |
| Focusing on key issues rather than fundamentally reviewing the whole service | Less demand on staff time; time spent on review activity is more productive; more purposeful information gathering |
| A pragmatic approach to the conduct of reviews, keeping review activity clear and simple | Clearer understanding of what needs to be done to cover the ‘4Cs’; undertake review activity only where it serves a purpose; more effective use of staff time |
| Lighter touch | Effect |
| The management and conduct of reviews: | |
| Adopting a pragmatic style for Scoping Reports | Less time spent in preparation, more concise product |
| Grouping services for review, e.g. ‘Community Protection’ | Fewer meetings; less demand on staff time; better co-ordination |
| Combining the Housing, Environment & Leisure FSR team meetings under the joint chair of the respective Independent Chief Officers | Fewer meetings, less demand on staff time |
| Internal audit and finance staff required at meetings only when specialist advice is needed | Less demand on internal audit and finance staff time, more effective use of specialist support |
| A less administrative approach | Less paperwork; less over-lap between FSRs and SRGs; less bureaucratic; more effective use of staff time |