Agenda item

 Attendees:

-       Matt Lewis – Chief Officer (Shared Resource Service)

-       Kath Beavan-Seymour – Assistant Director (Shared Resource Service)

-       Mike Doverman – User Support Manager (Shared Resource Service)

-       Rhys Cornwall – Head of People and Business Change (Newport City Council)

-       Mark Bleazard – Digital Services Manager (Newport City Council)

-       Dominic Gibbons – Digital Projects Manager (Newport City Council)

The Head of People and Business Change presented a brief overview of the report to the Committee and highlighted the key areas for consideration. The Committee were advised that the deadlines associated with the Investment Objectives (IO) were out of date and had been updated since the report had been published. An updated report with the new deadline would be circulated for information.

Members asked the following:

·                Members commented that they would like more detailed information included in the IO updates, and that the two line updates did not provide sufficient information. Members were advised that most of the IO were linked to others, for instance, IO 8 had strong links to IO 2 and to avoid repetition the information was not included twice.

The SRS Officers accepted that this was not clear in the report and in the future they would look to group IOs together that shared similar information for clarity.

·                Members noted that the IO update information included was similar to the information included in last year’s report. The User Support Manager used the IO 2 update as an example in their response. The Disaster Recovery solutions, was completed in two phases, the first of the phases had been completed. The second of the phases had been given a two-year plan to be completed in 2021. SRS included information on both phases in the update to show that progress had been made in completing the first phase, and when SRS expected Phase Two to be completed.

·                The Committee queried why the IO deadlines had been extended. The Chief Officer advised that Phase Two had a number of priorities, which required assessment prior to work continuing. For example, iTrent was hosted by the Council and would be migrated to SRS shortly. Prior to the migration, preparations had to take place to scope this was timely and went smoothly. Newport had 21 systems, this meant that there was a lot of work that needed to be completed to prepare for each migration and in some cases, a transition to another system which could provide the same or better service at less cost. The initial deadline in 2017 had been indicative only, and the purpose of Phase Twos was to migrate all services to Blaenavon. The Head of People and Business Change outlined the significant capital investment that was required for completion of IO 2.

·                Members queried how SRS kept focus on core targets. The SRS concept was to focusing on the needs of the organisation, while maintaining low costs and looking to invest for the future. The change to Microsoft Office 360 was a very expensive project; SRS used the money from that to invest elsewhere to improve services for Newport. SRS was a non-profit organisation and any money that it received or saved an organisation would have been invested back into services improvement and development.

·                Members enquired about any potential issues within the partnership, and advised that improvements that could always be made to partnership working, however both parties were committed to this and the partnership was working well. It was advised that both partners meet on a regular basis to discuss any issues and work on the partnership, the dates of which were outlined in the report appendices.

The User Support Manager added that in order to support Newport, all teams and individuals needed to be cross-skilled, allowing them to deal with numerous different issues. There were training plans in place to provide the staff with additional skills, but acknowledged that there would always be new technologies emerging and skills to be learned, this was a process that would be ongoing to provide the best service to the Council.

·                Members commended the service on the savings achieved. The Head of Service explained that there had been additional money saved this year as the overall spend was lower than average.

The User Support Manager then advised the Members that Newport’s first batch of new laptops had been procured, and SRS were close to having the same devices across all partners. This would further eliminate the need for people and resources to be focused on multiple makes, models and programmes, which allowed a streamlining effect to save money.

·                Would the figures for first point of contact decrease, especially with Digital Champions within the Council being able to help with basic queries? The User Support Officer advised that the majority of calls from Newport were for password resets. Once the new platform was rolled out, users would be able to reset their own password, which would decrease the number of calls received.

·                Members requested a breakdown for the number of calls on page 45 of the report. Members were advised of the figures that were broken down across the partners by months and whether they were resolved at first contact. In Newport the figures for September and October had remained static, but were expected to increase.

·                Members praised the customer service they had received, and wished for this to be feedback to the team in the Council. Members then discussed customer satisfaction surveys, which showed positive responses and feedback in the report. For the small amount of dissatisfied, what were the queries or comments? Members were advised that there was a mix, where all comments were reviewed through the Monthly Delivery Board, but majority are where users were frustrated when systems go down. SRS Officers highlighted the poor response rate to questionnaires, and this was something that they had been looking at ways of improving.

The User Support Manager then advised the Committee that any completely dissatisfied responses to the surveys were contacted directly. It was highlighted that the poor response to surveys coming in had been due to users not wishing to fill out surveys, so the ‘smiley face’ scale had been brought in, in the hope of increasing the number of respondees.

·                Members highlighted of the importance of strong broadband strengths in schools with the focus within the new curriculum on IT use1. The current broadband in schools was too weak and prone to issues, which the Committee felt, was a clear issue. Members were advised that SRS offered provisions to schools, however schools were their own entities and some schools were starting to step away from Local Authority provision to try to procure services themselves. SRS had planned on what they would do for schools and were keen to get schools that are out of provision into SRS EDU provision. Members were informed that SRS had hoped that the schools would stay on until SRS could migrate them to the EDU provision. SRS had a timeline for migration, and were open and transparent with schools about the steps needed to get there and the costs once migrated.

·                The Committee enquired as to whether SRS had considered inviting Education Representatives onto the SRS board to act as a lead for work with schools. Members also commented that there were some teachers that were digital experts that could help support SRS’ efforts to be the preferred education service provider. Members were informed that there were separate infrastructures for corporate services and education services, although there were strategy groups in each authority working towards bringing schools into partnership with SRS.

The Chief Officer explained that the Head of Education had been involved in conversations and was keen for more schools to join SRS. The SRS Officers explained that the Welsh Government had negotiated a deal with Microsoft, and part of this deal included SRS provided Microsoft related services would be free to schools. Only schools in partnership with SRS could take advantage of this.

Members suggested that links were actively strengthened with Schools.

·                School cluster work was discussed and Members asked were there any individual schools moving away? The Chief Officer advised Members the cluster work did work well, and gave an example that when Newport High School stepped away, the primary schools in the cluster followed. This seemed to be the case elsewhere; the primary schools followed the lead of the secondary school in the cluster. SRS were taking advantage of the cluster set up by basing staff in secondary schools in a cluster whose responsibility it was to cover that school and any primary schools in the cluster. 

·                Members asked for an overview of what the attendees view was on the advantages and disadvantages of working in partnership. The Chief Officer advised that the foundation of the partnership was trust, which was needed in order to collaborate effectively. However, decision making was more complex.

The Head of People and Business Change explained there was a willingness of the other partners to work together. The Council had been clear about sharing infrastructure, systems and applications from the outset. The User Support Manager then advised that a good partnership was reliant on effective compromise.

·                Members were advised effort by staff to bring in the new Microsoft 360 system online, as well as the Member and staff mobile phones.

·                Members asked if there was an update on Caerphilly Council joining SRS. Members were informed that a meeting had taken place but that discussion were ongoing. 

·                Members discussed high priority calls on page 63 of the report, with Newport having seven over the year but Torfaen over 20. Members were told that Torfaen log finance calls at Priority 1 in order for the query to be raised, which was the historical way to log these type of calls. The new system will address this and the number of high priority calls would come down.

·                Members spoke of the importance of getting a Business Continuity Manager in place. Recruitment had taken place and a successful candidate with a background in this area had been recruited. This would have allowed the partners to share learning across the all continuity meetings.

The Chair thanked the Officers and representatives of SRS for attending.

Conclusion - Comments to the Cabinet

The Committee noted the Shared Resource Service Update and agreed to forward the minutes to the Shared Resource Service as a summary of the issues raised.

The Committee wished to make the following comments to the Shared Resource Service:

1.         The Head of People and Business Change will provide an updated report to the Committee for information.

2.         The Committee recommended that the Investment Objectives were made clearer and their relevance to other Investment Objectives is highlighted.

3.         The Committee recommended that the SRS included Education Digital Leaders either on their different boards or as an agenda item, the aim of this is to improve the service for schools and education providers.

4.         The Committee requested a timeline to be provided for SRS developing the Education Infrastructure.

5.         The Committee requested that SRS provide an action plan for how they aim to achieve each of the Investment Objective and present back to the Committee in 6 months’ time. The Committee were concerned that the finances of SRS were not reported adequately back to Members and that this be included all updates to the Committee.