Agenda item

(To receive a report by 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 February 2018 and March 2018.  The report also provides a progress update on key IMT-related transformation and transactional projects being undertaken by Serco)

Consideration was given to a report by the Chief Commercial Officer which provided an update of Serco's performance against contractual Key Performance Indicators specified in the Corporate Support Services Contract between February 2018 and April 2018.

The report also provided an update on the progress made on key IMT-related transformation and transactional projects being undertaken by Serco and included a list of 20 suggested priority projects and a proposed reporting format.

Sophie Reeve (Chief Commercial Officer), Arnd Hobohm (Contract Support Services Manager), John Wickens (Head of IMT), Mark Bennett (Partnership Director, Serco) and Jane Sickerdich (Head of Projects and Programmes, Serco) were in attendance for this item.

Following the Board's approval at its meeting on 29 March 2018, the format of the report had been condensed into a more succinct format.  At that meeting, a proposed list of the top twenty priority IMT projects together with a narrative of the rationale behind those projects was requested.  Members also asked that the full list of projects be presented in order to review and verify the key priorities.

The Chairman suggested that each section be considered separately to give Members the opportunity to ask relevant questions.

Performance

Table 1 within the report provided an overall summary of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of service delivery over the period October 2017 to April 2018.  Table 2 showed that no KPIs failed to meet the Minimum Service Level during that period, however Table 3 showed that four KPIs failed to meet the Target Service Level in February and March 2018.  Table 3 on the addendum report indicated that two KPIs had not met the Target Service Level in April 2018.

Table 5 showed the number of abatement points which the Serco Corporate Support Services Contract had attracted each month since the start of the contract.

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

·       IMT_KPI_02 and IMT_KPI_05 failed to meet the Target Service Level in April 2018 due to an outage of the Avaya telephony system.  It was explained that this outage had been a priority one incident which was not resolved within the agreed resolution timeframe.  There were different views as to whether the equipment was obsolete.  If it was obsolete Serco's obligations would be less.  It was explained that as Serco and LCC had different views on the obligations for this particular KPI, this was to be resolved through escalating the issue through the contract's governance arrangements;

·       The contractual time allowed to rectify any faults on the telephone system was two hours but, on this occasion, it took slightly longer than four hours which meant the service level agreement was not met.  The outage affected the ability to open an outside line which also impacted on the gateway services of the council, however the 'fix' for the root cause identified was complex and would take a number of months to complete; and

·       It was acknowledged that platforms can have issues but that these were often rectified within the agreed timeframe.

Top Twenty Priority IMT Projects in progress with Serco (Appendix A)

John Wickens (Head of IMT) introduced this section of the report and explained that internal processes were being updated to ensure that this report could be prepared on a continual basis.  It was acknowledged that the Glossary on page 29 of the agenda pack would need to be expanded.

The suggested priority projects were presented to the Board with the intent that these would form the basis for future reporting.  It was envisaged that the projects were reported through to completion and that these would only be replaced once a project had been completed or cancelled.

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

·       In relation to IMT-251 (Lincoln Campus Distribution Network), it was explained that there was a considerable amount of work to be done in order to update the system.  The Board was advised that this was referred to as a 'technical debt';

·       The completion of national programmes from government funds, such as Broadband UK was key to the ability of local authorities to upgrade citizen facing services online.  Government was now becoming more proactive in protecting the '.gov.uk' brand;

·       Congratulations to both LCC and Serco IMT was noted  for their involvement in ensuring the project for Sleaford Fire Station (IMT-221) which was completed both on time and to specification;

·       All areas of the council were impacted by IT services and the cost involved to provide the appropriate level of document storage was highlighted and the key issues faced in this area;

·       Online and telephone booking and payment systems were mentioned and it was explained that these requirements were included within the channel shift programme.  The option was there, technically, to enable this provision, however these systems were owned by the individual business areas and could not be implemented without authorisation, therefore short notice work was in flight to ensure the continuation of services whilst the future of the Channel Shift programme was being resolved;

·       It was noted that the system changes within Children's Services had been positive and that the new hardware worked well to link Mosaic with Windows 10 to the benefit of field workers in that service;

·       The suggestion of future Artificial Intelligence and the implications of various algorithms within school admissions was raised and asked as to who would decide if a child was to be accepted into a school, i.e. would it be a human or a programme;

·       Concern was raised in relation to highways and the ability to report issues online.  It was reported that the current platform relied on a mapping system which was community developed.  That map had been withdrawn due to the new GDPR rules.  It was confirmed that an exception order had been placed to secure 'Fix My Street Pro', in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for IT and Highways, to ensure residents were able to report issues;

·       Should an urgent project come to light, it was noted that having funds available for that project would be an incentive for Serco to find the resources to support the project.  An example of this was the completion of Lancaster House where a number of small projects were required to ensure the completion of the overall project;

·       Representatives of Serco confirmed that there was some capacity for additional projects at the current time and that work was ongoing with LCC IMT colleagues to ensure that capacity remained;

·       The Board indicated that the report format, as presented, was suitable but that an internal project sponsor be added should there be any queries from Members;

·       It was suggested to add the original target cost of the project and the forecasted costs to the report;

·       Members requested that the number of 'TBC'  under expected delivery of outcome be reduced going forward and to include an anticipated timeline.

Overview of the Strategic Transformation Projects being delivered by Serco (Appendix B)

The table showed the outcomes being delivered for the Council in terms of the Transformation Projects which Serco included in its Tender, each of which may have required the delivery of one or more projects.  Individual projects were managed through the technical and project delivery boards, the view of which was intended to show the impact on the Council's services.

It was not intended to present this appendix in future reports and this was agreed by the Board.

All IMT Projects in progress with Serco (Appendix C)

The table represented all projects assigned to the categories of Lifecycle Management and New Capability as at 1 May 2018.  This table also included all those projects identified as the top 20 priority projects and was intended to give the Board the opportunity to consider any projects which may need to be prioritised further.

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

·       It was explained that application servers were virtual/digital rather than physical hardware;

·       One Member highlighted the issues relating to REM-IMT-299 (Securing SAP Legacy Data) and explained that this should be considered with some urgency due to the possibility of the authority being fined by The Pensions Regulator for data breaches.  It was explained the severity of this issue had been a recent discovery but that this would be looked at again as the issue had not been considered by IMT as a priority before as the business impacts of the platform had not been realised;

·       It was explained that IMT_012 Biz Talk had been on hold due to the Agresso project but that this had now recommenced;

·       It was agreed to consider the projects again in August and to agree which projects should move into the Top 20 priority list in place of any completed projects.

RESOLVED

1.    That the shortened format of the main body of the report, together with the enhanced IMT project reporting, be accepted;

2.    That the performance of the Corporate Support Services Contract and related projects be noted; and

3.    That the Top 20 priority IMT projects, noted in Appendix A, be agreed;

4.    That the format of the top 20 priority projects, as shown in Appendix A, be agreed.