The issue of wardens in sheltered housing continues to rumble on. Even though Barnet and Portsmouth Councils have said they will not appeal the judicial review ruling, this only means they will need to redesign their tenant consultation process to take into the account the ruling; it does not mean the warden service will continue. EROSH (Essential Role of Sheltered Housing), an organisation which represent providers, reports that “between a quarter and a third of tenants did not need a warden when they moved into sheltered housing. “ The article in Inside Housing (5/2/10) continues by quoting EROS as saying “Many of these tenants therefore find the daily call from a resident warden intrusive and a wasteful of their own money or government money. “ Sheltered Housing UK, which represents sheltered housing residents, polled around 300 residents on the issue of site-specific wardens. 91% said they would not have moved in if they had known services would be dropped, and 98% want their warden back. 79% said the changes were recent, and only 4% said they had been consulted. The one group not represented in this are the staff – the people who provide the support. As an NVQ assessor, I have met and worked with a number of these staff. They have very genuine concerns for their work. They are very aware of the real financial concerns faced by their employers; they are also keenly aware of the needs of the residents. Many of them feel caught between these two groups. Those who provide floating support do feel that the service is lip service – a quick weekly call, often limited to a few minutes – does not allow them to give any real support. For the on-site wardens, they sometimes feel residents could do more to deal with their own activities, but there is greater satisfaction because they can spend time with people and make a difference. Is there a simple answer? Usually, the answer is no. This time, I think there is. The February 2010 edition of Edge, the Institute of Leadership and Management's monthly magazine, has lean management as its main feature. I read it with great interest, especially as they give local authority success examples. It starts this way: “First work out what is of value to the customer, then try and root out any steps that do not add value to your customer. “ The idea is to “track the customer experience and then redesign the process” – by putting the customer at the heart of what you do. The article gives all the Japanese names for various steps, but my favourite is the “go out and see” step –how many managers would be ready to be the mobile warden for a week to see what they go through and talk to the customers? Or be the scheme manager for a week, running events, making calls and struggling with the system. It just might give them an indication of the expectations customers – and that includes family, friends and social services – has of the system. It would mean engaging the customers and their staff in a redesign which just might meet everyone's expectations! One of the words here is “lean”. The idea is to better utilise the resources you have to meet the actual needs by cutting out steps and providing value. I know that additional funding to the system is unlikely, but there are ways to make it both a good customer and a good staff experience. We find that out by putting customer service and experience at the heart of what we do – and meaning it.