Have you noticed that when the NHS creates a new IM&T body it is thought to be the most effective and reactive organisation ever. Rather like fissile material, incredibly powerful and dangerous to be near. It kills off fast growing and independent smaller bodies that are often more effective at local level, lays waste to local and commercial partners of the NHS and can leave behind a lack of innovation and development.
And yet 5 years later it seems powerless, bewilderingly weak and something you might use as an example of how not to do something. If you travel widely and listen to presentations from Sweden to South Africa the NHS is an example of how not to do IM&T change. I know that was not the intention and yet it is where we are.
The NHS is dynamically conservative, change is something that is extraordinarily hard to deliver nationally, it is hard enough to achieve locally, with so many workers in the NHS feeling they have a personal veto too many programmes just run into the sand.
So what therefore is the management half-life of CFH, it would seem to be less than 6 months, that would mean its authority halves every 6 months, so if 5 years ago it was 100% today it is about 0.01%. Seems about right to me. I do accept that the odd radiologist out there may have a better view on the maths.
Therefore, if the change you seek is not delivering within 3 years I strongly suggest that you look to the organisation delivering it. Is it fissile or futile?