The Improvement Service report on Property Asset Management in Scotland's councils has been published.
The report is based on data collected from 30 of the 32 Scottish local authorities and focuses on three main aspects of property asset management:
- the arrangements councils have in place for the corporate planning and management of property assets.
- the core information councils hold on their property assets including the volume of assets they hold; the condition of those assets; the 'fitness for purpose'/suitability of those assets; and their value.
- the arrangements in place for accounting for assets and the performance of assets in supporting delivery of services and strategic objectives.
Key Conclusions
- There are substantial strengths in current property asset management arrangements. The majority of councils either have or are moving towards a corporate property asset management framework. Change to the property asset base is well supported and corporately scrutinised. The accounting for property assets is entirely in line with with guidance and standards, and of a high quality. Most councils are committed to a collaborative approach to the provision and use of property assets, and a wide range of examples of co-investment and co-location now exist.
- Areas for development are equally apparent from the study. Few councils would presently be able to meet the requirements of fully corporate asset management; full review of the current portfolio including opportunity values; accurate projection by services of future asset requirements; long term, costed maintenance planning for the property base; and a robust corporate governance framework.
- Capacity needs to be developed further with respect to: corporate leadership; an empowered and resourced corporate property asset management function; the creation of complete and consistent core data on a basis that supports internal and external benchmarking and the integrated presentation of property data to support decision making and scrutiny.
- Collaboration with other councils, and with public sector partners, was strongly emphasised in the study. It seems sensible that a development programme for corporate property asset management would be on that basis as well to ensure commonality in how property data is generated to support joint, as well as council, decision-making. Equally, work on taking cost out of collecting core data, work on the proposed "comprehensive survey" template, and work on developing a simple decision support system would usefully be done on a shared capacity basis.
- Finally, the study suggest that the present capacity for achieving the above needs reviews both in terms of whether the numbers are sufficient, and of whether functions that are integral to corporate property asset management are sufficiently integrated. Two related developments will support this. First, the National Shared Services diagnostic project, in which 29 councils are participating, is precisely focused on the capacity and configuration of business support functions, including asset management. The data from this project will be invaluable in developing corporate asset management. Second, the Public Service Improvement Framework (PSIF) is designed to provide a rigorous framework for self-assessment and improvement at service level. It would provide a framework for examining leadership capacity and process in corporate asset management, and identifying improvement opportunities, including shared services options. This might include the "hub" proposal from the joint premises project board.
