Industry news


A tale of two housing associations


both organisations have a very different approach and culture. Golden Gates Housing Trust (GGHT) and Helena Partnerships were brought together in April 2015. Together they own and manage 22,000 homes, have 850 staff and 44,000 customers. Torus, who was charged with merging GGHT and Helena in 2015, is based in St Helens (Merseyside) and Warrington (Cheshire), and has an asset value of £412 million. There are often significant opportunities to create


J


real cost savings from strategic moves such as a merger; however actually achieving them can be a difficult journey. Mergers and acquisitions often focus more on the infrastructure development, rather than the people and associated cultures, which will have been developed over many years and which cannot be changed overnight. Following the merger of these two local landlords, a repairs and maintenance cost reduction specialists – in this case, Vantage – was asked to come in and assist Torus in maximising the potential benefit and get the best out of their new structure. There were three main questions: How do we


come together with one new strategic approach to asset management? How do we efficiently bring together two existing in-house maintenance operations with radically different cultures and operating styles? And, how can we better communicate in a timely and effective way with customers? Vantage spent time working alongside Torus to


oining two existing Registered Providers (RPs) together is exciting. However, realising the benefit of a merger can be tricky, particularly if


really understand their strategic objectives, the different values of the two RPs and their concerns post-merger. The first question was really answered through Vantage’s work with Torus. Torus led on the second two points, devising and implementing a radical change programme.


ASSET MANAGEMENT: ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE Torus recognised that as their stock size grew, so did their ability to make a real difference to the community around them. By challenging their existing approach and revisiting the roles of the asset managers, client and in-house contractor teams they were able to establish clearer accountability for the in-house service leaders and free up time for the assets team to focus on strategic asset management priorities. Unlocking the relationships between the client and in-house maintenance team was key to this. We challenged who was accountable for specific workstreams budgets which led to a re-think in R&M budget management. Whilst strong governance was key, Vantage helped the leadership team to ask themselves why they ‘cliented’ maintenance teams in a way that they didn’t any other part of their business. Ultimately all the required skills existed within the teams; it was about thinking differently and a re-focus on each team’s priorities.


REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE: A NEW WAY FORWARD Torus understood the potential issues in R&M. Pre- merger both teams had in-house repairs and


22 | HMM March 2018 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


maintenance teams. Post-merger it was evident a new operating model, combining the best from both organisations, was necessary. Following on from the work Vantage had done on asset management, Torus devised their own approach to R&M. Harnessing the benefits of the in-house teams,


whilst creating an efficient, lean and customer- focused operating model, they were able to transform their R&M service. They conducted an in-house, in-depth review, speaking to their staff on the ground to understand where the strengths and weaknesses were and how a new way forward could be delivered. The two in-house contractors had a


combined budget of £30 million and over 400 staff. However, their service offers were vastly different, they had two different IT systems, there was a large variation in costs, their terms and conditions of employment were not the same and their operating models and practises couldn’t have been more different. They had some easy wins, such as bringing the


two teams to one base and some which took longer and were more complicated. For example, adopting the outsourced stores models across the whole operation was time consuming and complex. Some of the short terms contracts were terminated in favour of defined workstreams. Capital workstreams and cost targets were set on a three-year rolling basis subject to best value review; giving them more long-term certainty. As the two teams came together as one new RP, clearer accountability on budget responsibility was


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52