Friday, 14 September 2007

MTAS revisited

The ball has been served into play, the MTAS 2008 ball that is, and the MMC Board have produced a document outlining the various options for next year. Here it is.

There are three issues that they are opening up to consultation, and this chance must not be missed: shortlisting, national or local application form and applicant preferences.

Strangely for shortlisting, there is no option of having locally arranged short listing; this is especially strange given that this is the only tried and tested method. I also strongly believe that marked application forms must be binned, only a proper CV that allows individual flair should be accepted by trainees.

As regards the application form, there is simply no need for a CV based form. The form should be locally determined and a CV should be attached, the idea of a CV-based core of an application form is a definite second best to a proper CV.

I feel strongly that more applications should be allowed per candidate and that this should be done 'concurrently' in the words of the MMC board. Their one-strike-and-out philosophy is nothing short of a disgrace.

If you feel strongly about this attempt to water down MTAS and feed it back to more victims, then I suggest you write to to express you views. I have written a short letter than you may wish to send expressing a concise set of opinions that could not be misinterpreted.

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to reply to the 'Recruitment to specialty training -Proposals for improvements in 2008'. I have read the document in full and decided upon the following.

1. Shortlisting. This must be done locally and with proper CVs that allow individual creativity.

2. The application form must be determined locally and it must allow CVs to be attached in full.

3. Applicants should be able to apply for unrestricted numbers of jobs concurrently.

Kind regards,

1 comment:

David L. Cox said...

I've read the paper through twice now and must defer to those more knowledgeable than myself concerning the Proposals.

I would however make some points:

1) The disaster in 2007 (and I may add the lunacy in 2005, lest we forget) impinged upon the SHO grade more than any other. To some extent the Foundation Year system is a holy cow of Donaldson's and the feeling that it must not be allowed to fail or be seen to fail, lingers. Interesting, therefore, that the Offer route proposals diagrams show no mention of SHO! I wonder why? Or has SHO been changed to "No training post secured"? Let them not forget who the "lost tribe" refers to.

2) Little confidence can be expected in any system deriving, even with input from the juniors, from the management who perpetrated the deed last year. This is crack-patching at best, and a sensible approach cannot be achieved while the managers involved in the original mess are in position. I would hope that criticism of manager's part would be within the Tooke remit, but I doubt that it is. Donaldson should of course go, but Hanafin - new to me - but described in the document as Chief Operating Officer can go to. Fewer operations can have been so mishandled than the MMC/MTAS fiasco of 2007!

Martin Marshall, Mary Armitage of MMC and Clare Chapman, Director General of Workforce at the DH are listed. All should be under direct scrutiny to their part and they should consider their positions. A particular word for Clare Chapman - Workforce Planning!!!! Here is a field where most certainly there have been continuing expensive cock-ups. If she was in position at any time in the past 24 months she should have been sacked by now!