Agenda item

(To receive a report from Sophie Reeve (Chief Commercial Officer) which provides an update on Serco's performance against contractual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) specified within the Corporate Support Services Contract between November 2017 and January 2018.  The report also provides an update on progress made on key transformation projects being undertaken by Serco)

Consideration was given to a report by Sophie Reeve (Chief Commercial Officer) which provided an update on Serco's performance against contractual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) specified within the Corporate Support Services Contract between November 2017 and January 2018.  An addendum to the report had also been circulated to the Board which provided data for February 2018.

The Chairman welcomed Mark Bennett (Partnership Director, Serco) to the meeting and invited Arnd Hobohm (Serco Contract Manager) to introduce the report.

The Board noted that Appendix A and addendum to the report provided detailed Key Performance Indicator results from August 2017 to February 2018 broken down by service area.  It was reported that there had been no failed KPIs during this period. 

Only two KPIs across all service areas had been granted mitigation relief.  Both of these KPIs were within the Adult Care Finance area due to the implementation of Mosaic and the number of process issues which remained as a result.  The Board was assured that work continued with relevant staff to resolve all of these issues.

The Chairman paused the presentation at this point and invited members to ask questions, on this section of the report only at this stage, during which the following points were noted:-

·       When asked if payroll issues might cause hardship to employees, it was explained that there was a process in place to make emergency payments until the issues were resolved;

·       Mosaic was an LCC system which was currently being worked on to develop it sufficiently so that payroll could be linked directly to it.  The upgrade to Agresso had held up that piece of work but this was now complete and work was continuing; and

·       It was reported that Serco had worked hard to put in place sufficient processes to ensure that the level of work remained sustainable.  The ageing infrastructure was proving to be the greatest challenge but both LCC and Serco remained optimistic.

The Chairman reflected that the KPI picture was a good one but that the Board would be looking for performance to remain consistent going forward.

Officers were invited to continue the presentation.  Appendix B detailed the transformation projects to be delivered by Serco and included additional information to identify target delivery and any slippages in delivery.  There had been a requirement to prioritise transactional projects which had also affected completion of other projects.  The Board was advised that the nature of IT meant that it was difficult to predict problems until they actually arose. 

It was intended to prepare a timeline going forward where it would be possible to verify the target rate and indicate clear milestones.  A suggestion was also made to identify the top 20 projects in future reports for the Board to consider.

Members were invited to ask questions, during which the following points were noted:-

·       Full Council had recognised that IT required financial support in order to improve the hardware and infrastructure and agreed to add £3m yearly to the IT budget.  It was thought that this was an opportunity to scrutinise IT projects to ensure value for money was being achieved and the suggestion to identify 20 top projects was a good start;

·       The Board was advised that there was approximately 150 projects at any one time and that it would be helpful if the members of the Board, in their position as scrutiny chairmen, could indicate which projects would be a priority in their areas;

At 10.38am, Councillor Mrs A M Newton left the meeting and did not return.

·       Although some software packages may be the best solution for some service areas, it was noted that they may not be the best fit for the hardware and infrastructure available;

·       The Board was assured by the Head of IMT that, despite the fact that the current written IT Strategy was out of date by two years, a strategic view was operated within the section;

·       IT security had been increased and was reported to be five times more secure since the last attack;

·       Concern was noted in regard to the responsibility of the county council as corporate parents and the provision of IT equipment to foster carers, children's homes, etc., to enable those children to have the same opportunities as others;

·       Due to a number of individual areas within the council having little commonality it was suggested that an IT strategy be developed to detail the peculiarities of the IT requirements in each particular area.  An overarching strategy of generic IT requirements could then be developed.  In addition, members suggested that an additional level for reporting at an operational project level be developed;

·       It was reported that the current forward work plan was up to the end of the contractual phase with Serco.  The work plan could be amended to include 'work in flight', milestone dates, agreed completion dates with Serco and expected dates to commission future projects.  The Board welcomed this type of report and asked that this could be presented monthly;

·       The Chairman reiterated the point that strategies for the future were important but that the Board needed to focus on the progress of current projects.  It was agreed that officers would present a proposed list of 20 key projects with a narrative of the rationale behind those chosen in addition to a list of the total 150 projects;

RESOLVED

1.    That the report be noted;

2.    That future reports be presented by exception reporting only;

3.    That a report detailing the complete list of active projects and details of the proposed 20 key projects be presented to the Board at either the April or May meeting.

At 11.25am, the Board adjourned for a comfort break and reconvened at 11.30am.