Shared services are boring, difficult and may not save all that much money. They are also politically essential for the future of local government.
Many commentators expected to see a spate of sharing agreements after the 2010 spending review. There has been some progress – Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire's Local Government Shared Services initiative being among the most impressive examples.
But those who expected to see new call centres popping up across the cheaper parts of Britain have been disappointed.
There are many reasons for this, ranging from high profile failures like SouthwestOne to fears about the quality and flexibility of shared service centres. Perhaps most importantly, NLGN estimated a few years ago that sharing might only save a not terribly exciting 1.8% of a council's controllable spend.
These factors are going to be overwhelmed by the sheer political logic of shared services.
By 2017, many councils will see their budgets dip beneath the levels necessary to meet statutory minimum service provision.
With most of the other options exhausted, councillors will start to find the 1.8% figure a lot more interesting. They will not be able to plead poverty to local people or Whitehall if they have not taken it.
And, of course, our estimates were based solely on conventional back office outsourcing.
Combined authorities and groups like the West Alliance provide the perfect platform for shared innovation.
Councils should start building citywide policy and innovation resources to make their resources go further. They should consider areas such as legal and other professional services and aim for joint commissioning in areas such as social care placements.
Some areas will find that frontline services, like fostering and adoption make more sense on a larger scale.
If sharing is going to happen anyway, we might as well start building political consensus and managing the market now. Time to get on with it, local government.
Simon Parker is director of the New Local Government Network (NLGN)
