Archived decisions

Contact: Colin Hinxman, Chief Executive's Department - 01962 847343 email: [email protected]

1. When the ICT Scrutiny Panel reported to the Committee in January 2006, they made three main recommendations:

· That in view of the perceived risks to business continuity at the existing computer suite, the Committee endorses its eventual relocation, ideally entering into a reciprocal arrangement with another Local Authority for the provision of IT Services in an emergency, and urged that proposals for disaster recovery should be a corporate priority for the County Council.


· That further investigations be undertaken by the e-champion into the relationship between Central IT Services and Department IT staff and support, with a view to ensuring value for money, effectiveness and quality of service to users.


· That Members of the Panel and interested Members of the Committee be given the opportunity to contribute to the review and reissue of the document, "Transforming through Technology", the County Council's e-government and ICT strategy.


This report responds to the second of the above three recommendations.

2. In the intervening months, Councillor Baulk, as e-champion, has met with the following officers and their teams:

· Education - David Woodward, (Head of Education ICT) Glyn Paton, Nicola Tyson, Paula Guy

· Adult & Children's Services - Ken Howard (Head of ICT)

· Recreation and Heritage - Jan Jones (Head of e-government)

· Chief Executive - Vicky Jolly

· Environment - Tim Conway (Head of ICT and e-government) and Merrick Denton-Thompson

· Treasurers - Bevis Ingram

· Property, Business and Regulatory Services - Hugh Poore (1T Technology Manager)

3. The opportunity was taken to discuss relevant issues with departmental staff responsible for ICT and e-government issues, and the salient points are set out in the paragraphs below.

3.1. Referring to these departments as "ICT Departments" is a misnomer and it makes the relationship between them and IT Services easier to understand when this is realised. These departments (with EDICT being the only exception) are the so-called `thin client.' They have the knowledge of the business and the understanding of the technology to advise and support their respective departments. They do not have anything directly to do with the technology. IT Services, however, maintain the technology but do not have the in-depth knowledge of the different businesses required. It is apparent from the list of the IT Managers that even their job titles vary from one department to another although their responsibilities appear to be the same.


3.2. There is only one area of obvious duplication/inefficiency - IT Services has its own IT Helpdesk and so does EDICT, although the latter is supporting our Schools. It was recognised during the ICT Scrutiny that these should be combined. Although this is now planned the process should be moving more quickly than it is.


3.3. An area of questionable duplication/inefficiency - The departmental teams often receive calls from staff, who are experiencing IT problems, that should have possibly gone to the IT Helpdesk. There is no doubt that these calls do help the IT teams to stay in touch with the problems arising and, for staff, they know they are speaking with someone who understands the business but, is this a good use of a team's time if they are also acting as a `help-desk?' Also, are the statistics collected being shared with IT Services and are the IT Services Help-Desk Staff ensuring that the departmental teams are kept informed about problems?\


3.4. There is an interesting perception by some smaller departments that the larger ones receive quicker responses and better support from IT Services. Some of the problem is that the service provider/client relationship is very open within the County Council. This is not really surprising because of the nature of the organisation but would not normally happen in the commercial sector. One client would not usually have enough knowledge of another's relationship with the same service provider to be able to see if their level of service was considered better or worse in quality and delivery.


3.5. It is felt, again by smaller departments, that there is a lottery on the quality of expertise they can expect from IT Services' Consultants for their projects. The departments know, depending on who the consultant is, how well - or not so well - a project will run.


3.6. Unlike many commercial businesses, IT Services charge for giving quotes/estimates for projects. Also, estimates tend to be given rather than quotes. If a project requires more consultancy time than was estimated the department has little choice to pay the extra. For a larger department this extra is easier to absorb than for a smaller department that has a far more limited budget. However, the question is, if IT Services are confident about the quality of service they provide should they not be giving quotes and bearing any over-run themselves?


3.7. There are some concerns about the "Contact Centre," the large cost of implementation - especially in the present climate - staffing issues and the guarantee of improved services. There are also concerns about public perception and the public's experiences of call/contact centres and the detrimental effect this could have on people's perception of the County Council if the project is implemented badly. Staff are ambassadors for the County Council. If they have concerns about the Contact Centre then the people they speak with pick up on those concerns and be prejudiced by them.


3.8. IT Services has gone through a re-organisation that has, to some extent, pre-empted the results of the scrutiny of their relationship with other IT Departments. The content of the report by Jos Creese covering the re-organisation has been fairly well received by all departments and there is a general feeling of confidence that things will now improve - if it works.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Policy and Resources Committee agree the following approach

1. IT Departments should consider re-naming themselves with a title that reflects their real role rather than one that gives the impression that they are mini IT Services departments. There should also be some uniformity in the job titles.

2. As long as the level of service received by schools from EDICT does not suffer then the merger of the two help-desks should progress as quickly as possible.

3. IT Services and the departments need to consider the quality of the service they are providing when dealing with problems from Staff, how this questionable duplication can be resolved and a method to ensure that statistics are shared.

4. IT Services must be more aware of the "openness" of the relationships they have with the different departments and do everything to ensure that the same level of quality and service is experienced by each department.

5. The quality of the consultancy offered by IT Services must be addressed. A perception of a "Consultant Lottery" must not be allowed to continue. The least experienced consultants should be kept away from the front-line until they can work at a high standard.

6. IT Services must stop charging for providing estimates/quotes for projects and should stop providing estimates but, having confidence in the quality of the service they provide and the Staff they have, should be giving quotes.

7. Cabinet must ensure that proper communication is taking place between senior officers and staff especially those staff whose jobs are directly affected by the Contact Centre and that a seminar be arranged to bring all members up-to-date on the Contact centre project.

8. Having gone through re-organisation, IT Services and their relationship with departments, should be reviewed again in 12 - 18 months time.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works.

2. Documents which disclosure exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE

None

5eR5606