Many public sector employees will have greeted last week's Conservative proposals to transfer government property assets with a shrug of the shoulders. What does it matter who owns or manages the buildings we work in?
The truth is, if it made no difference, then it would not be worth the costs of setting up a new body and transferring ownership.
Judging from the experience of the private sector, efficiency savings in the first couple of years could exceed 20%. That is the motivation for any future Conservative government in transferring ownership.
The efficiencies are achieved largely through a focusing of minds. Paying a realistic cost for property forces departments to use space economically and free up surplus space for disposal.
Senior managers become more acutely conscious of property costs when they have to start paying rent for the space they use. Depending on how those costs are allocated throughout the organisation, team leaders and other middle managers can also be encouraged to reconsider their use of space.
For employees, efficient use of space can mean a very different and, often, very welcome way of working. It is not unusual for a review to find 50% of office space unused at any one time, because staff are at meetings, on leave or off sick. An independent review would also take into account all the ineffective space in cellular offices and meeting rooms.
At a more strategic level, the mission of an organisation should be scrutinised and the properties checked to ensure they reflect priorities. The organisation's history might mean that a currently minor function occupies more than its fair share of space. Any management strategy of leaving room for flexibility or growth will also be questioned.
What might be different two years into an efficiency programme of this type?
· Compulsory desk sharing for those who are frequently away from the office.
· Greater encouragement to work from home for those whose roles allow them to do so.
· More efficiently populated space with fewer enclosed offices for individuals and a more open-plan style of working.
· Fewer meeting rooms dedicated to individual teams.
· More sharing of buildings and central functions between departments.
Of course, a review of property costs provides an additional incentive for the transfer of whole departments away from areas of high property costs. Part of the motivation in the recent past has been to relieve some of the overheating in the south east and bring good government jobs to areas needing regeneration or an economic boost. Those principled arguments have proved easier to resist than a screaming balance sheet.
The property strand of the present government's Operational Efficiency Programme already recognises the potential to generate substantial capital sums from asset sales and further efficiency savings through the efficient use of property. Pressure for changes of this type is likely to come regardless of whether it is Labour or the Conservatives who form the next government.
Any change of government would mean substantial reorganisation, through the formation of new ministries and restructuring in those that survive. Next time the reorganisation could be far more dramatic than a simple change of name plates on office doors.
Rob Oldham is a senior director at property consultancy CB Richard Ellis
