Agenda item

Attendees:

-       Matt Lewis (Chief Officer, Shared Resource Service)

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

-       Cath Barnard ( Service Manager Education Services, Shared Resource Service)

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

-       Annette Drew (Business Manager, Shared Resource Service)

-       Tracy McKim (Interim Head of People and Business Support)

-       Mark Bleazard (Digital Services Manager)

-       Dominic Gibbons (Digital Projects Manager)

The Chief Officer presented a brief overview to the Committee and highlighted they key areas for consideration.  Members’ attention was drawn to the finance section of the report, and the savings options provided to the Finance and Governance Board for review.  He advised that the SRS was on budget and had delivered the savings requested.  Partners were now in a  single category agreement with Microsoft. The largest increase in costs were due to the Office 365 migration and Microsoft agreement and based upon need.

He referred to the previous report to the Committee, when Members had asked about timescales for ICT for Education and advised that a Strategy Group had been set up and had met twice.

Capital drawdown had greatly reduced. Application Support was a pressure, queries had reduced as one person returned, and services were down to just one person. However, SRS are in process of moving to a different platform. Papers would be considered by the strategic board the following week, of which Newport’s Cabinet Member is a member.  A key meeting would be taking place the following week relating to consumption models and cloud services.

Ten recommendations had been given from the strategic board and there were updates taking place on a quarterly basis, but there was some overlap. A copy of the Recommendations and Next Steps paper could be circulated to Members of the Committee. It was also advised that there had been a lot of positive feedback.

Members asked the following:

·      A Member referred commented that SRS received £2.2 million but that it wasn’t clear what Welsh Government wanted the money to be spent on, e.g. broadband.  Not all schools had bought into the Service Level Agreement, so how could the Partners ensure that those schools will get a provision.  The Officer advised the Committee that the money had originally needed to be spent within 7 categories, now 6 categories and details could be circulated to Committee Members.  There were 6 layers, that schools had to work up and there needed to be a standard of infrastructure that schools need to hit the next level. Every school would benefit, although an example was given that it would be likely that a school with everything in place already would receive less money than a school who had little in place. Partners were committed to delivering the SLA in Newport.

·      A Member raised confidence of teaching staff being able to teach using devices and asked if Welsh Government was providing supporting guidance on the way forward regularly. Members were advised that the SRS had brought together delivery authorities to peer review plans and discuss what they were doing. EAS were part of that discussion to make sure parties were talking to each other. Members were also advised of the Welsh Government push to drive down the cost per device, but there were lots of challenges in this project.

·      Concern was raised about the challenge of being able to engage with schools. Members were advised that the Chief Education Officer was working on this alongside the SRS Service Manager (Education Services).

·      Members spoke of the cost to buy into the SLA, and schools in deficit were being attracted by cheaper providers and schools needed to be confident that the SLA would be affordable and deliverable. The Officer advised the Committee that the build of budget for the SLA would be straightforward. A number of Headteachers had asked if they could try out the services for six months, but this was difficult as if they stepped out, other schools would then see an increase in costs. Schools needed to work together. SRS has a limited set of resources, and could bring in people to rebuild the timeline but it was dependent upon when schools could make things available e.g. Primary schools asked for work to take place in the summer holidays.

·      Members discussed Headteachers coming together to discuss items at forums and asked what challenges the SRS foresaw to Headteachers buying in.  Members were advised that the they had financial and time pressures, that may mean freeing up a morning for SRS may be difficult or not so important to them, so SRS might have to find a different way to engage. Some success had been achieved in Monmouth and Torfaen. There was a roughly 50% split in SLA and non-SLA schools.  SRS needed to make schools understand the agreed timeline, as Welsh Government would move onto other projects with the funding.  The Officer advised that there had been a better attendance in the second meeting. Headteachers would begin to realise how it would effect all of their schools within or out of the SLA.

·      A Member referred to School Governors not all being proficient in the use computers of and other technology. It was thought that governing bodies had not been engaged.  SRS had been called into governors meetings when something was not working. The relationship with school governors would need to be improved, as they were the decision-makers.  A regional governors meeting would be better for engagement.

It was added that with the Blaenau Gwent migration, it  had been open to Headteachers to invite SRS to governor meetings and 12 schools turned up who were advised what SRS are doing and why, which was well received.

Members replied that if possible SRS could link Governors to attend if Headteachers could not attend. SRS work with EAS for training staff and this could be ideal opportunity to see partnership working between the different partners.

·      A Member queried the thinking behind the strategic board decision for 5-year extension to 2026, although the positives could be seen.  The Officer advised this came from the drive for commitment to SRS.

·      There is a lot of spending on hardware and did the partnership envision a point where costs come down, or is it just the cycle of upgrading.  The Officer advised that revenue costs go up but the capital costs go down. Example was given of renting from Microsoft you’ll always be in budget. It is important for SRS to make sure Newport are in a sustainable position. Its not likely to reduce and no authorities plan that sustainability. Example was given that when you get to the end of 3-5 years, the partnership looks at if they can make things last another year.

·      Query was made about the Overtime Review (25% reduction) and why wouldn’t this be reflected in the budget.  Members were advised that the budget shown in the report was the updated budget. Members then queried with regards to specifications on laptops, did  the partnership go for optimum or overspend for future proofing.  It was advised that they worked closely with partners but did not go for premium packages, they got the best performance for the best price.

·      If migrating to the cloud, would that save money on licences, and would the Council have to pay up to a certain amount of storage space on the server. Members were advised that for desktops there would still be the need for a licence. Example was given that in May, Newport migrated to Office 360, so some licences were no longer required, but were still needed for other things. In regards to storage, it was advised that it would be far and beyond what Councils would need.

·      Is there a long-term contract with SRS’s suppliers, and could it be terminated if equipment became too expensive.  Members were advised that partners had seen a decrease in the price of equipment as it had recently been assessed. Regular meetings were held with the suppliers and as a part of the contract, SRS had put in a six monthly review on pricing and could break the contract at any time.

·      Does SRS go to schools to provide training when there is new technology available. Members were advised that for any new applications or software EAS picked up the training, as SRS did not provide a training service to schools. However, SRS ensure that they are on a supported software package e.g. Windows 10 is supported by Microsoft.

·      Comment was made about all performance measures being Green and that the service had improved. It was however difficult to judge comparatively to other local authorities, so how did Newport measure against other local authorities? Members were advised that the same measures were in place for the 4 partners. Every month a meeting is held which is replicated across all partners with figures given. These could be circulated to the Committee.

·      Members were advised that the digital and strategic aspirations for schools is school owned items, they need to tell SRS how to do things and what they want. SRS role is to deliver the strategy. Schools need a template of sorts from somewhere that has done this properly. All authorities are dealing with that currently, Newport’s digital strategy needs to come from Newport.

·      Can local authorities work in partnership to improve, and is there any work that can be done in forums? Members were advised that a meeting had taken place yesterday, we can have a group share of the strategies that schools currently have. A sub-group could possibly be put in the Digital Strategy to create a template of a good strategy guide for schools. It was then said that it would be a lot easier if schools had the same strategy.

·      Members were advised that there had been a customer satisfaction score of 97%.

The Chair thanked the Invitees for attending.