When one size does not fit all

As it turned out, my diary did not allow me to take part but the invitation got me thinking. Implicit in the subject for the debate was the notion that small organisations – buffeted by rent convergence, increasing asset management costs and the pressure to improve performance – must band together or join larger partners in order to survive. And that if they don't, they will not continue as autonomous organisations.

Mere survival is not a strong strategic objective. At the extreme, survival means remaining in existence; for others, survival means remaining independent. Some organisations will be able to continue but, because of their inability to access necessary skills and resources, will be unable to respond to the requirements and aspirations of the communities they serve. They may, therefore, survive but are likely to become increasingly irrelevant.

It is fashionable to talk of rationalisation and a restructured sector. The Housing Corporation's recent consultation paper on this issue attempted to clarify a confused situation. The document seems to hint that perhaps the local monopoly landlord is back in favour and that reducing the number of managers may improve things. How the appropriate number of organisations working in an area can be defined is a difficult issue and, wisely, the paper tries to set out some criteria for establishing a proactive stance for the corporation to take in shaping the organisational structure of the sector.

The issue of tenant choice needs more detailed attention and this may come after this round of consultation. I struggled, despite having read it three times, to find any relationship between the pressure to innovate through competition and a way to shape the structure of the sector. However, the main thrust of the paper is to promote a debate about how best to use structure and management arrangements to increase efficiency and improve performance. This is well overdue and should be welcomed.

The search for any organisation, therefore, has to centre on continuing to be relevant to:

• the political context in which it works
  
• the communities it serves
  
• the people who work within it.

We cannot just have large organisations without local responsiveness; nor small, inadequately resourced organisations. We have to find a way of having both

While there are several ways to remain relevant, it seems to me that the key benefits of being large – financial resources, diverse operations, the ability to employ and attract a range of skills, a sophisticated strategic outlook – need to be married with things that come from being smaller and locally focused, like local knowledge and service responsiveness.

My own view is that this is not an "either-or" option. We cannot just have large strong organisations without local responsiveness and local knowledge; nor can we have large numbers of small local, inadequately resourced organisations struggling to respond to the challenges they face. We have to find a way of having both.

Larger organisations can maintain local focus and be responsive, and there are opportunities for smaller organisations to band together to create a critical mass through joint ventures or by specialising. Some smaller organisations join larger ones, maintaining their identity and local focus but gaining financial and strategic strength.

It strikes me, therefore, that successful organisations should not just search for a platform to continue their activities: the search ought to be for relevance. We should seek out the most appropriate structural solutions that make sure our organisations are increasingly relevant to today's society, local communities and government. They should have skills, financial strength and an innovative approach fused with a listening local focus in order to tailor solutions to local contexts and community requirements.