Agenda item

(To receive a verbal update from Judith Hetherington-Smith, Chief Information Officer and FDSS Programme Director, which will provide the Committee with an update on the governance, risk and control arrangements for the Future Delivery of Support Services)

The Committee received an update from the Chief Information Officer and Programme Director in relation to the Future Delivery of Support Services – Assurance and Handover Arrangements.

It was reported that the contract with Serco had been completed and it commenced on 1 April 2014.  Serco would be helping with some of the transformational projects. 

The Chief Information Officer and Programme Director outlined some of the changes which would be taking place as follows:

Agresso Transformation – this would replace the SAP system, Serco would be implementing this during the coming year in order to go live on 1 April 2015.

IMT Transformation and Transition – this would take two years to complete, and would change the way that the technology was structured and managed.  It would also change the way that the authority used data centres, and there would no longer be a reliance on a single on-site data centre.  The majority of the data would be moved to two remote data centres and would then be accessed remotely.  This would greatly improve disaster recovery.  

Customer Service Transformation – the Customer Service Centre would be moved over to Serco in 2015, and Serco would be working with Zoe Butler, Head of Customer Services, and her team in the coming year.  There would be a move towards more IT self-service systems, but there would not be a reduction in the telephone systems.

People Transition – there would be a lot of staff transition from April 2015.  From 1 April 2014, accountancy staff and a small number of property staff would transfer from Mouchel to the County Council.  It was noted that the accountancy staff would be within the County Council when the transition from SAP to Agresso was undertaken.  Staff would also be transferring from the County Council to Serco in April 2015, some staff would also transfer from Mouchel to Serco in 2015.

Property – this was being dealt with through a separate procurement exercise.  An invitation to tender was provided to 6 shortlisted companies, and these would be presented to the Value for Money scrutiny committee in July 2014.  Following this another significant staff transition would be undertaken.

Health and Safety would be brought back in house from April 2015.

Catering - the contract had been split, the civic function would be included in the property contract and there was still a need to award the contract for catering at the secure unit in Sleaford.  This would be done through a separate procurement exercise.  It was noted that some staff would be affected by TUPE transfer.

Pensions – the authority was exploring the possibility of working with another local authority on the administration of the fund.  More information would be known in the coming few weeks, but this was still a work in progress.

A number of strategic governance and operational governance boards had been set up as part of the programme governance.  It was noted that the operational boards had been set up to monitor the day to day activities as well as providing a more strategic overview.  These boards also provided a route into Management Board and the Executive.  Reporting of performance would be through the Value for Money Scrutiny Committee.

Members were advised that a senior management review was underway at the moment, and this would lead to staff changes later in the year.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to discuss the information which had been presented to them, and some of the points highlighted during discussion included the following:

·         It was commented that this was  a lot of work to do in one year, which was one of the major risks with this work;

·         In response to the risks with this work, the Committee was advised that there was a single programme officer co-ordinating all the work, and each project had its own risk register, as well as a risk register for the overall programme.  The work was monitored by the Partnership Board and Transitions Board;

·         Members were advised that compliance with the contracts would be discussed in detail by the Value for Money Scrutiny Committee and the Executive.  Whether there were any penalties if the contract was not performing as it should could not be discussed in public as the information was commercially sensitive;

·         It was noted that a number of lessons had been learned from the Mouchel contract which had been embedded in this new contract;

·         It was requested whether the Committee could be kept up to date with the work taking place, for example, following certain milestones.

·         The property contract did have a 'pain and gain' mechanism in relation to performance;

·         The data storage was covered by Public Sector Network Security which was externally audited by the government on an annual basis;

·         It was felt that one area of risk was that there would be a lot of staff movement in the coming year.  Members were assured that there was a whole year for the transitions to take place, and there was HR expertise within the programme team which would help to manage the transfer of staff.  Serco also had dedicated staff to assist with the transfers, and all staff transfers would be undertaken through the TUPE process.  The first of a series of staff briefings would take place on 1 April 2014, they would be informal briefings as it was too early to start formal consultation.  The formal consultation would start in January 2015 and run for three months;

·         The external auditors had been in discussions with officers regarding the change to Agresso from SAP for 6 months.  It was noted that SAP would remain operational until the close down for the financial year (i.e. until the end of June 2015).  The key to an early close down was planning.  There was the potential for an extra cost, but this was likely to be minimal compared to the cost of running SAP for another year;

·         A member of the Audit and Risk Management team would be working with the implementation team;

·         Audit staff would work with the Chief Information Officer, Value for Money Scrutiny Committee and other scrutiny committees to manage the reporting;

·         The input of internal audit in the transition process for this work was welcomed;

·         It was noted that during the budget setting process, the Leader of the Council recognised the importance of the audit team's work during the transition phase of the contract and so the resources available to the team were not reduced;

·         There was a drive from central government to improve the efficiency of pensions through joint administration;

·         In relation to schools which were currently using SAP, it was noted that they would be able to change to Agresso if they wished.  It was expected that most of the small maintained schools would change to Agresso.  It was noted that the authority would not be dealing with academies in relation to this.  However, Serco did provide services to academies in other parts of the country, it would be up to the individual academies to make the decision of how to proceed.

RESOLVED

            That the verbal update be noted.