Not sure how much of this to believe. Our friend Brendan Pells had these observations, published elsewhere; Reading through the statistics bulletins from the MoJ, it appears that some definitions have been massaged to exaggerate the performance of Capita. The MoJ now trumpets ‘success rate’ as the key performance indicator and not – as most people would assume – the ‘fulfilment rate’. The fulfilment rate is pretty easy to understand, it’s a measure of how often a CTI ‘terp turns up when a request has been made, divided by the number of requests (after subtracting those which have been cancelled by the client). For example, HMCTS makes 120,000 requests, of which it later cancels 20,000 of these, leaving 100,000 bookings for which CTI has to provide a ‘terp. They manage to provide a ‘terp for 90,000 of those bookings, so the fulfilment rate is 90%. However, where the MoJ is applying some jiggery-pokery is that it takes the fulfilment rate, and then adds to it those instances where the client does not attend. Let’s assume that on the 90,000 occasions when the ‘terp is in place and ready to work, there are 3,000 instances that the client not turn up. The MoJ then calculates that the success rate is (90,000 + 3,000)/100,000 = 93%. This blurring of definitions allows MoJ to disguise the actual fulfilment rate, for no reason I can think of other than to fiddle the figures to flatter Capita. I refer to the glossary of terms in the bulletins which defines the success rate. ‘…This is calculated as the number of completed requests that count as successful supply of the service ie. ‘Fulfilled’ plus ‘Customer did not attend’, divided by the total relevant completed language service requests excluding those requests cancelled by the customer..’ What do you think?
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:06:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015