[TCUG] BV165 Re-visited
- From: "Dave Hulson" <Dave.Hulson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "TCUG" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:49:44 +0000
As the end of the financial year approaches and deadlines for Best Value
indicators draw near, it has fallen to me to calculate our BV165 figures
using the new 'formula'. To help us over the transition period from one
method of calculating the figures to the new method, I was asked to
produce start and end of year figures using both methods. Both sets of
figures showed an 'improvement' over the year but with the new figures
noticably lower than the figures calculated using the old method (about
seventy percent compared with about eighty percent).
Despite the fact that we are now counting something quite different to
before, our Best Value Team seem rather shocked by the difference in the
results and to calm them I have agreed to ask whether others have seen a
similar change in absolute value for BV165. If so, have others found
that the new value is generally higher or lower that the corresponding
figures calculated using the old method?
Thanks,
Dave Hulson
Nottingham City Council
***************************************************************************
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.
***************************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit http://www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts: