Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Nov 2008

Workplace Innovation: Discussion with National Centre for Partnership Performance.

I apologise to Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne, director of the National Centre for Partnership Performance, and Mr. Conor Leeson, head of communications of the National Centre for Partnership Performance. We had a delegation from Hungary and issues with translation which extended the length of the meeting.

I apologise for the Chairman who was obliged to attend other business. I thank the delegation for their attendance. Ms Fallon-Byrne's opening statement was circulated to members by e-mail yesterday. Before we begin I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

I thank the Chairman. On behalf of NCPP I thank the committee for their invitation to address it today on the subject of workplace innovation and the role it can play in helping Irish business to gain competitive advantage in a challenging economic environment.

The NCPP was established by the Government in 2001 to promote and drive partnership-led change and innovation in Irish workplaces. Its establishment stemmed from the recognition that if Ireland was to develop a dynamic, inclusive and knowledge-based economy our private and public workplaces needed to be transformed into high-performance, high-quality places of work.

The area of partnership with which we are specifically concerned is at the level of the enterprise. At its most simple, enterprise-level or workplace partnership can be defined as employers and employees working together in a co-operative and collaborative manner to boost productivity and improve the quality of working life for all.

The NCPP has a staff complement of seven, and a total budget for 2009 of €1.2 million. Ours is a small team, working in a policy area that is effectively still in its infancy in Ireland, but which is nevertheless critical to the continued economic and social development of the State. Since its establishment, the NCPP has built a substantial body of evidence in support of the intellectual and business case for improved performance in Irish workplaces. It has also initiated a wide range of collaborative activities with key Departments, State agencies and the social partners to engage private enterprise and public sector organisations in implementing best workplace practice. I have included in my presentation some highlights of the body of work we have carried out over the years.

The NCPP is also a highly networked State agency. In pursuit of our remit, we work in close co-operation with a wide range of private and public bodies, including IBEC, ICTU, Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, IDA Ireland, the LRC, the Equality Authority, Skillnets, the CIPD, the Small Firms Association and Chambers Ireland, to name but a few. On the international stage, our efforts to drive and promote workplace innovation have been noted in many countries. In the past three months, we have welcomed to Ireland researchers from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Belgium and Finland, all keen to learn more about the national workplace strategy and other NCPP initiatives to boost productivity and performance through organisational innovation.

Workplace innovation is at the heart of our mission, which we pursue through a combination of research, evaluation and advocacy activities. Workplace innovation is about new ways of working based on new ideas, practices and behaviours that significantly add value to the organisation in terms of productivity, performance, innovation and quality of working life. In other words, it is about new ways of doing everyday things in the workplace, from the organisation of work and working practices to employee relations and beyond. Workplace innovation opens up the innovation process to everybody in the workplace and allows employees and managers at all levels to make a contribution.

It is important to understand that there is more to innovation than research and development, even though that is very significant. In a successful modern economy competing in a global marketplace, innovation requires many platforms. Innovation at the level of enterprise and the workplace is the most crucial aspect of a country's innovation system, but this is an area that is often neglected. Professor Michael Porter of Harvard Business School states that "All economic success is ultimately at the level of the firm." Therefore, our future economic success will be rooted in the success of innovative enterprises. A well-functioning, successful, modern economy is built on firms being innovative, that is, being able to produce new, higher-quality, lower cost products and services than those that were previously available.

It is also true to say that innovation increases in a time of crisis. A crisis or "performance gap" triggers mechanisms for the introduction of innovation and radical change. That is why supporting innovative capacity in enterprises and organisations is such a critical response to our current economic difficulties. Workplace innovation is a critical part of this response as it creates the conditions in businesses for further innovation to thrive and prosper, and builds capacity for change and flexibility.

Workplace innovation has now been recognised as a critical component of our national system of innovation. In July 2008, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment published a policy statement on innovation in Ireland, in which workplace innovation was explicitly recognised as a key enabler of change in a rapidly changing domestic and international environment. Examples of innovative workplace practices include: participatory management and leadership styles; good internal communications; high levels of information and consultation; team working; learning and upskilling; performance management systems; flexible working arrangements, as well as flat and flexible structures. The key to improving innovation in our workplaces, regardless of size or sector, is by budding high levels of employee involvement, engagement and empowerment in the enterprise.

What is the business case for workplace innovation? Over the past 15 years, a growing body of Irish and international research evidence has emerged to show that a very strong link exists between the implementation of innovative workplace practices and outcomes such as: increased productivity and profitability; improved operational processes; improved product and service design; greater efficiencies throughout the enterprise; enhanced flexibility; reduced time spent in conflict and dispute resolution; improved staff retention; lower absenteeism; and enhanced employee understanding of business challenges.

One of the most recent empirical studies on this subject anywhere in the world was commissioned jointly by the NCPP and the Equality Authority in 2006, and published in January 2008. We asked a research team comprising senior academics from the University of Limerick, Dublin City University and the University of Kansas to measure the average labour productivity of 132 leading Irish firms drawn from the list of Ireland's top 1,000 companies. The research team was then charged with measuring the proportion of that productivity that could be attributed directly to the use of what academics call "high performance work systems", or the workplace innovation practices to which I have referred. The results were impressive, to say the least. Average labour productivity in the companies surveyed was found to be just under €300,000 per worker per annum. The use of these systems in the companies was linked to average variances in productivity of 14.8%. In other words, companies implementing innovative workplace practices were found to be significantly more productive than their competitors. In monetary terms, the researchers found that the productivity gains were equivalent to an extra €45,000 per employee per annum in additional sales revenue. For the median-sized company in the survey, which contains 277 employees, this was equivalent to an extra €12 million in annual turnover. The survey also found that companies with high levels of high performance work systems had a lower rate of staff turnover, at -7.7%, and higher rates of workforce innovation, measured as per capita sales revenue derived from recently introduced products or services.

In recognition of the fact that larger firms tend to find it easier to embrace the concepts and practices of workplace innovation, the Government has put in place a new funding mechanism called the workplace innovation fund, which will help Irish SMEs boost their productivity and performance through workplace partnership and employee participation. The workplace innovation fund is managed jointly by the NCPP and Enterprise Ireland. It has a budget of €6 million, which is administered by Enterprise Ireland. Since its launch 18 months ago, more than 30 Irish companies have benefited from the fund. Grants of between €10,000 and €200,000 have been approved to enable these firms to embed a culture of partnership and participation in their workplaces. Activities eligible for support include initiatives to improve internal communications systems, information and consultation arrangements, management training and leadership development, team working and team building, and performance management systems. The NCPP is working closely with Enterprise Ireland to raise further the profile of the workplace innovation fund and to expand the eligibility criteria, so that as many Irish companies as possible will be able to benefit from it.

Workplace innovation is a new and vital form of innovation, the potential of which has yet to be fully realised in Ireland. As a result, we need more employers and employees, as well as legislators, policy makers and others, to be aware of the huge potential of workplace innovation and its proven ability to help our firms gain competitive advantage in challenging economic circumstances. As leading economies around the world continue to seek out new strategies and new areas in which to build such advantage, the role and potential of workplace innovation is becoming increasingly apparent. At this critical juncture in our economic and social development, Ireland simply cannot afford to be left behind.

I thank Ms Fallon-Byrne for her presentation. Has anybody any questions?

I thank Ms Fallon-Byrne for that presentation. It is encouraging to see this aspect of industrial life. How long has the National Centre for Partnership Performance been at this work? With the number of companies that have come through the books of the National Centre for Partnership Performance at this stage, how does it measure success? Where success is not as obvious as it should be, what are the main reasons for failure? What is the role of trade unions in this? How successful has the centre's relationship been with employers whose workplaces are highly unionised?

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

We were established in 2001 and the NCPP has been working on this agenda since 2001. However, the main focus of our work in terms of workplace innovation has been largely in the past three years because we established a forum on the workplace of the future between 2003 and 2005. The biggest message from the forum was that we are under-performing in workplace innovation which we need to address. We have concentrated much of our work in the past three years on this area.

We measure success in several ways. We ran a large national workplace survey in 2004. We checked the practices that provide for greater levels of workplace innovation in Irish companies. We are running that survey again this year. At the moment we are actively working on the questionnaire and the results of that will come out next year. We will be able to see whether we have moved on. We looked, for example, at the level to which employees were involved, got information in their workplaces, were consulted on areas related to their work, were allowed to promote ideas and so on. All of the different aspects of innovation will be checked, drawn together and published next year. That is one way. We also have other ways of measuring our success, on which Mr. Leeson may speak to the committee later. We did some market research on our public awareness campaign to see the level of public awareness of our efforts.

The Senator also asked about the role of trade unions. We work very closely with the trade unions. They are on our council. We engage them in many of our different activities and projects. We recognise that we work with all workplaces in Ireland. We work with the public and private sectors. Our remit covers workplaces in Ireland in general. They are not always involved in every single project we have. However, for example, we worked very closely with the trade unions on the information and consultation directive and we identified companies that were showing good practice and best practice in that area. They helped us identify companies that were doing good work in that area and we developed a network of 15 companies and showcase the type of work they were doing.

Similarly we work with them in the area of dispute resolution and have produced a major study this year on innovative forms of dispute resolution looking at Canada, Sweden and other places. So we involve them very closely in all of our work. We need the unions to engage more fully with this agenda. They engage at the leadership level. However, in terms of activation at the workplace level we need a greater level of engagement from them.

I ask Mr. Leeson to speak about the research we did on our impact.

Mr. Conor Leeson

As Ms Fallon-Byrne mentioned earlier, we are responsible for overseeing and promoting implementation of the national workplace strategy. In that context we ran a nationwide public awareness campaign throughout 2007 and 2008 to spread the key messages of the strategy and to get our workforce — employers and employees alike — to start thinking about the extent to which their workplaces were open to these kinds of innovative workplace practices.

We did some market research around the campaign and found that there had been a significant increase in the level of awareness among the respondents to the existence of the national workplace strategy. Prior to our running the national awareness campaign less than 35% of the workforce had ever heard of the strategy. Eighteen months later when we concluded it, that figure was up to approximately 45%. We also were able to establish that 90% of respondents who were aware of the strategy were able to identify the main objectives and purpose of the strategy. There is certainly a growing awareness among the general public and by extension the workforce of these kinds of innovative workplace practices and the workplace innovation agenda we are promoting.

I was thinking more in terms of success in improved productivity at enterprise level as a result of whatever support the NCPP is providing. What is the experience to date?

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

We have tracked the evidence from the research I have outlined today. For example, in that case we took a sample of the 1,000 top companies in Ireland and we analysed closely the work practices in those companies and how it made a difference. The difference it seemed to make in that piece of research was just under 15%. The difference between introducing these practices and choosing not to do so is quite powerful. We have considerable other evidence from the case studies, work we do and the showcasing of examples of high performing companies. For example, we have done a business case for some of the practices like equality and diversity. We have done much work in the area of employee financial involvement. We again worked very closely with the unions on that. We have done a series of networks in terms of building learning organisations. So we are tracking it through case study work, national surveys and detailed research which showcase and make the business case for the kind of work we do.

I welcome our guests. I do not want to be too critical. Perhaps it is the mathematics teacher in me. I felt the presentation was somewhat too jargon-heavy and lacked specifics. Perhaps I like things to be just right or wrong as they are in most mathematics questions. Other than the workplace innovation fund which the NCPP administers with Enterprise Ireland, is it involved in anything else to help small and medium enterprises with funding or otherwise?

Mr. Leeson mentioned the advertising campaign. The NCPP's budget for last year was approximately €1.7 million. What is the budget for 2008? I am informed that at least €1.1 million was spent by the centre last year on PR and advertising. I presume that centres largely on the campaign the witnesses mentioned earlier. It seems like an enormous proportion of its overall funding. I accept that the centre is small with only seven employees. Was there any other spending on PR and advertising?

I note that €120,000 was spent on conferences and seminars. I know there was a seminar last September and there may have been others. I ask for elaboration. I also note — this is a particular pet hate of mine — that last year it spent just under €200,000 on consultancy fees. The witnesses have touched upon this. I ask them to outline in more detail what that was spent on. It is very topical to focus on value for money issues, which is appropriate. A few years ago the Government decided to conduct value for money audits in the various State agencies with a view to them being published. Was one undertaken in the NCPP and has it been published? Did it refer to spending €1.4 million out of €1.7 million in funding on advertising, PR, conferences and consultants? I do not want to be excessively critical. I can see the advantages of the work the centre does. However, the committee has a job to ensure that public funds are spent correctly and that we get value for those funds. I hope Ms Fallon-Byrne can answer those questions.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

Everything we do relates to small and medium enterprises as well. We are a very small team with a relatively small budget so typically we try to work with bigger organisations in terms of our remit which, incidentally, is not covered by the larger agencies. It had not been covered by Enterprise Ireland until we brought it on board. We work very closely with bigger networks. That is the only way we can work because we are a small team of four or five professional people and two or three administrative people. A multiple amount of our projects over the last seven years have brought on board the key Departments or State agencies that can help us make a bigger impact.

We do very close work with IBEC and the Small Firms Association in supporting small business. Last Monday, we gave a presentation to the Small Firms Association on the workers innovation fund, inviting the association to come on board in terms of drawing down this fund. The value of the workers innovation fund is that it is not just for providing a monetary incentive to bring about these practices but it is also a mechanism of improving best practice and creating a platform for selling those messages very strongly.

The core budget of the NCPP is approximately €1.1 million. Just under €700,000 of that is for staff costs, which is our professional team. It is a professional body and very labour intensive. The public awareness campaign budget was part of the workplace innovation fund. It was an exceptional fund that was made available to support the workplace innovation initiative. We were doing a great deal of research, producing publications and doing much good work in terms of what constituted best practice but we were not able to publicise this to small businesses, large organisations or the public. A small budget of €1.5 million from the workplace innovation fund was made available over three years for that and, because of the advice we gave, it was front-loaded. A total of €1 million was spent over the first year on television and radio advertising to begin the process of public awareness. It is a separate budget from the core NCPP budget.

Conor Leeson headed the public awareness campaign and I will let him clarify the figures relating to that campaign. After that, I will deal with the Senator's question about conferences, consultancy and so forth.

Mr. Conor Leeson

The money spent on the public awareness campaign, which was in support of the national workplace strategy and not to promote the NCPP, was an exceptional item in our 2007 and 2008 budgets. We were allocated €1 million in 2007 and €500,000 in 2008. We spent €1.46 million of the total of €1.5 million. Over €1 million was advertising spend. It was spent on buying broadcast time on television and radio, press advertising, outdoor advertising and on-line advertising. Media production costs came to just under €350,000. If members have ever been involved in making a television advertisement, even a 30-second advertisement, they will know how expensive they can be.

Consultancy accounted for a total of €64,426 over the two years. We spent €48,000 on consultancy in the first year and €16,426 in 2008. From the total budget of €1.5 million the vast majority of it was spent where it should have been, in my view, on getting the message across through the broadcast and other media. A small amount, €24,000, was spent on the market research I mentioned earlier. The media production cost €348,000 and the public relations consultancy cost €64,000. That is a total of €1.46 million.

There is a difference between advertising, public relations and consultancy. When people talk about advertising there is a perception perhaps that it is a consultancy fee going straight into the pocket of somebody who is advising us on our advertising. In this instance, it was spent on getting the message out on the airwaves and in the newspapers.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

In general terms and notwithstanding what Conor said about the public awareness campaign, the consultancy fees we are talking about would be intrinsic parts of our projects. If there is a research project under way, it is not necessarily a consultancy. The people who might work with us, such as Professor Patrick Flood who worked with us and a member of our staff on research on the high performance work systems, would be regarded as consultancy fees. However, it is not really consultants coming in to advise us. They are an intrinsic part of the project work we do. I understand why the Senator asks the question. We work with NESC and NESF, and we have looked again at how we itemise our expenditure because each of us works with specialists in particular areas, namely, researchers, university professors and people who have specialist expertise. They are a central part of our projects so it is probably misleading to call it consultancy fees. It is general project costs.

The Senator also asked about value for money. A value for money review is being undertaken of the NCPP, the NESF and the NESC at present but it has not come to a conclusion and has not been published. It is under way and we are waiting for its results.

The NCPP is an important agency and is doing good work. It is a national body. How can seven people cover Ireland? I note from the submission that the approvals to date are spread over 12 counties. Is the organisation really travelling to the south and west?

Ms Fallon-Byrne also mentioned private and public companies. What involvement is there with the community sector? There are many small community enterprise parks run by communities which are doing very good work. The work of the NCPP would be beneficial to them. Is the NCPP duplicating the work of human resources departments in companies? Is it doing the work those departments should be doing?

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

The Deputy raised a good point in asking if we cover the country. The NCPP is a small body that covers a particular niche or remit. We use the best and most strategic ways we can of influencing what our remit demands of us. Obviously, we do very good research and we commission research. We build the evidence and make that available. We conduct advocacy activities, of which the public awareness campaign was a part. We also work closely with bigger State bodies.

With regard to covering the country, that is the reason the workplace innovation fund is located in Enterprise Ireland. We use its network to bring the changes to the companies that are involved. The HRD advisers in Enterprise Ireland are bringing these messages and practices to companies. However, surprising as it may seem, until we produced the national workplace strategy, which was the result of our forum activities, Enterprise Ireland was not covering this. It was covering support in businesses for capital investment, management training and employee training but it was not covering the practices in the workplace that led to innovation or higher performance. Enterprise Ireland has found this a great help to its work because it is the central aspect that probably drives everything else. We have had to educate the HRD advisers in Enterprise Ireland on this area. Thankfully, we can use its network throughout the country because we are anxious that it will be countrywide and not concentrated in regions or particularly in the Dublin region.

The Deputy makes a good point about the community and voluntary sector. We have made some efforts to engage with it because we work very closely with NESF. The three bodies, NESF, NESC and NCPP, collaborate a great deal. I have given presentations to The Wheel and other organisations, but we have not really engaged with the sector at a very intensive level because our efforts are so intensely focused on the private sector. Although we have not discussed it so far, we do a great deal of work in the public sector also. I agree there is much work to be done in the community and voluntary sector. We have engaged it to explore best human resources management practices. It has access to our materials, including the reports and the research work we produce and on Monday a member of the voluntary and community sector made that very point at our seminar.

We influence human resources managers in organisations. For example, we work very closely with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, CIPD. Many human resources managers do not have the time or expertise to explore what constitutes best practice or to keep up with the latest developments in that area. Of all the groups with which we engage, it seems to be the most actively involved with our work. For example, last night I talked with the CIPD regional body in Galway. There were some 80 human resources managers from the Galway region listening to how to build more innovative organisations. We engage very closely with that body and we have a very good relationship with it, for which we are thankful, because it is a very good network.

Does the National Centre for Partnership and Performance have any involvement with transition year students in second level schools?

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

Not directly, but we have a good deal of involvement in the area of learning and education. Workplace learning and learning in general was a very central part of the development of the national workplace strategy. We produced a video of the importance of learning in the workplace and explored difficulties people face in later life if they have had poor experiences at school. We put a good deal of work into the whole learning area. I have very good connections with the learning area and the curriculum body because I worked in that organisation previously. I work very closely with the education sector. We make a good deal of noise about the need to have considerably more dynamic learning in schools. People can often leave the school system having had bad experiences and it is very difficult for such people to return to learning in the workplace thereafter.

I refer to the use of technology and the improvement of technology when dealing with companies and so on. Does the NCPP take account of how technology will change and how that in turn will affect how and where people work in the future?

There has been much immigration to Ireland which has led to various language issues and so on. Has the NCPP noticed any related effects within companies, large and small, and on business in general? That issue will obviously change with the altered economic conditions. Has it had an impact or caused issues for employers or employees? I presume the organisation is based on the USA model, or has it built up the model? Has the NCPP examined how Far East companies and businesses are set up and how they do business? Has the NCPP looked outside of Europe to analyse how business is conducted?

Has the NCPP any experience of gain-sharing schemes and, if so, how have they worked?

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

I will first address immigration. We identified diversity as one of the aspects necessary to improve innovation when we set out the vision of the workplace of the future. We have strongly promoted diversity because a diverse workplace is a workplace where there is a much wider variety of ideas. If a workforce is diverse it is more in tune with diverse customers.

We produced a large amount of data in 2004. The Equality Authority took that data, examined it and identified the benefits diversity can make to business performance. There may be significant benefits. Following this, we produced a report on the business case for diversity. We examined all the international evidence of the benefits of having a value chain of diversity in an organisation and it was compelling. It is of great benefit to Ireland to have a more diverse workforce and the immigrant population is contributing to the benefits. There are many case studies highlighting organisations which use this very creatively. For example, McDonalds is a very diverse organisation. It promotes diversity as an area of competitive advantage. We examined the case of Celtic Linen in County Wexford. It had trouble finding employees. Then two years ago it brought together all the relevant agencies, including FÁS. It has a very diverse workforce, but started holding English classes within the organisation. It is a very good example of the business case. The classes have had a very positive impact.

There are businesses which have taken advantage of the situation.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

There are indeed. We produced a report and examined the business case made in that instance.

We are not totally based on a USA model but we consider international evidence. The evidence on the benefits of workplace innovation is only now coming to light. Innovation has been largely concentrated on more scientific, technological sectors. Workplace or organisational innovation is not just coming to the fore. However, there is strong evidence of such innovation in companies in China, India and other places. We have learned from China, not so much on how its organisations operate, but what the country does in terms of its national system of innovation. We could learn much from China, which is frightening, because although production is definitely moving eastward, if innovation were to move eastward we would be in trouble. That is where we score highly. Countries such as China and India put very significant effort into their innovation systems. They are sending their people for free into organisations throughout the world to learn best practice. This is called brain circulation. They are investing significantly in learning and education because they have sufficient money. They are developing very strong innovation systems in education and learning and in their policy institutions. They are moving towards innovation rather than high levels of production and we learn a good deal from them.

I refer to technology and gain sharing. Technology is a significant enabler of workplace development and change. We have many areas to cover and we do not especially focus on the benefits of technology. However, we have worked closely with the Irish Management Institute, IMI, and its productivity centre which is largely focused on the benefits of technology in facilitating increased productivity. We maintain technology is an enabler, but we ask companies not to be overly concerned with the technology. Often in trying to bring about change in an organisation it is more important to emphasise how the change is managed and how people use technology. These are the main beneficiaries of the work. We work closely with the productivity centre in the IMI which specialises in that area.

Mr. Conor Leeson

I will add to the remarks of Ms Fallon-Byrne regarding technology. We like to remind people from time to time that machines do not innovate, but people do so. While we can use technology and machines to our advantage, implementing innovative workplace practices is a human capital exercise, not an exercise in technology. However, there is no reason they cannot go hand-in-hand.

I refer to the question from Senator Ryan concerning gain sharing. This has been identified as an innovative workplace practice that can build employee commitment and drive productivity in the workplace. It is one of several reward and recognition schemes used in Ireland, under the general theme of employee financial involvement. We produced guidelines in association with the social partners for employers, trade unions and employees on the different types of employee financial involvement schemes available in the country. I would be happy to provide the Senator with a copy of the guidelines. We found approximately 14.5% of companies in Ireland operate some kind of employee financial involvement, EFI, scheme. In addition to gain sharing, there are save as you earn schemes, approved share option schemes and employee share ownership schemes, such as those in operation in Eircom and Aer Lingus, for example. The problem with gain sharing in Ireland at present is that there are no fiscal advantages linked to it and no legal framework underpinning it. Since gain sharing schemes are not approved by the Revenue Commissioners, unlike the other types of schemes, no tax advantage can accrue from payments received as a result of such schemes. Therefore, gain sharing is not as popular as the other schemes, which are all approved by the Revenue Commissioners. It is a legitimate form of employee financial involvement but one that is suffering as a result of being treated differently from other types of EFI schemes for taxation purposes.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

Even though fewer than 15% of companies overall are involved in such schemes, among larger companies the percentage is much higher. This is particularly true in the financial services sector, where approximately 32% of larger companies in that sector operate employee financial involvement schemes. IBEC would be very keen to point that out. Obviously there are many small companies that do not offer such schemes, but a significant number of larger companies do.

The witnesses have supplied lots of statistics in terms of surveys and so forth but I am really seeking examples of companies that were given support through grant aid or some other mechanism which has yielded hard results or worthwhile achievements.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

It is too early to say because the workplace innovation fund has just started. It has only just been approved and the changes in Enterprise Ireland's strategy meant that in the first five or six months of this year, it was not in operation. The process of companies coming on board in terms of a grant from the workplace innovation fund has just started. We are now in the process of learning and building up a network of companies to provide such examples.

Companies such as Bausch & Lomb have made enormous advances in terms of gain sharing schemes. We have provided other examples under the heading of employee financial involvement of companies which have used that mechanism. In general terms, until very recently we did not have a fund to incentivise people. In time, we will be writing up the learning from these companies.

Mr. Conor Leeson

The guidelines to which I referred provide practical advice and guidance for companies which are interested in exploring this area. They do not recommend one type of scheme over another but rather set out the pros and cons of each. They also give practical advice on how to go about setting up the various schemes. We are currently involved with IBEC in a regional roadshow where we are speaking to its members in various cities on the benefits of employee financial involvement schemes. However, because we are such a small agency with a relatively small budget and a staff of only seven, it is a long and arduous road that we are on and, indeed, we are only at the beginning of that road.

Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne

Senator Ryan may be interested to know that we have a lot of case studies on our website. We use case studies to promote particular issues. There are 14 companies referred to in connection with the employee information and consultation directive, for example. There are approximately 15 companies in the learning organisation project. Many very big companies are coming on board now. For example, Tesco, which is one of the biggest companies in Ireland, has introduced these practices in the past two years and the benefits and results are tremendous. We have written up the story of Tesco. We have also video clips on our website featuring such companies as Medtronic in Galway, which is a highly innovative medical devices company. Up to 80% of that company's workforce is working on products that were only developed in the past two years. In the public sector, for example, we have the Environmental Protection Agency, which also uses these practices.

We use every mechanism at our disposal to highlight good examples in different sectors. In the presentation provided for the committee, we listed the top companies, such as Medtronic, Alliance, Aughinish Alumina, Beckman Coulter, Nortel and Tegral Metal Forming. The latter used a highly effective gain sharing scheme. Gain sharing can be used in many different ways, but Tegral Metal Forming used it to eliminate waste and made tremendous progress, as did Tesco, Hewlett Packard and others.

I urge members to check our website which features many case studies showing what we are promoting and the benefits accruing to companies.

I thank Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne and Mr. Leeson for assisting us in our deliberations today. In the current environment, partnership, innovation and competitive advantage are more important than ever. The National Centre for Partnership and Performance has an important role to play in ensuring that the Irish economy facilitates that and allows companies to grow.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 4 December 2008.
Barr
Roinn