Agenda item
One Council Programme
The report is attached. The One Council Programme Dashboard is attached separately for Members.
Minutes:
Peter Stachniewski (Head of the One Council Programme) presented a report updating the committee on the operation of the One Council Programme. The aim of this programme was to significantly improve the organisation of the council and delivery of council services. The programme offered a robust framework to support the delivery of change quickly and effectively. The progress of projects was monitored by the One Council Programme Board, which utilised a Red, Amber or Green (RAG) rating system and took an active role in ensuring that any issues or barriers to delivery were addressed. The programme had delivered gross savings of £11.6m in 2010/11 and was forecast to deliver a further £30.2m in 2011/12. The target for total savings over the four year period 2010/11-2014/15 was £90m to £100m.
Peter Stachniewski further explained that there was currently a total of 36 projects within the One Council Programme, 7 of which had been completed and formally closed, 18 were in delivery and a further 11 were in pre-delivery stages. These were a mix of single department, multi-department, cross council and partnership projects. At present, the overall rating for the programme was Amber; however this did not reflect the considerable progress made since the last update had been presented to the committee. This progress included the formal closure of two projects and the movement of several other projects into delivery. Governance across the programme had been reviewed and strengthened and this included the implementation of a revised governance structure for the delivery of the Civic Centre and associated move within which clear lines of ownership and accountability had been established. The pilot of the Environment and Neighbourhood Services Departmental Portfolio Board (DPB) was still in process and was progressing well. DPBs were still required to report to the One Council Programme board but were intended to ensure that greater departmental responsibility and ownership of One Council projects was undertaken. DPBs were designed to oversee single department projects and were required to report regularly to the portfolio co-ordinator. These reports would be copied to the Programme Management Office, which would also receive a subsequent composite report from the departmental management team regarding all projects within the departmental area.
Member’s attention was subsequently drawn to Appendices 1 to 4 which provided further detail in respect of the structure of the Programme (Appendix 1), project end dates (Appendix 2), individual projects, as presented in a dashboard form (Appendix 3), and the progress of current and new projects (Appendix 4). Appendix 2 had been provided at members’ request. With reference to Appendix 3, Irene Bremang (Manager of the Programme Management Office) explained that the programme dashboard provided key information regarding the projects and particularly focussed on changes which had taken place since the last update. The Chair noted that the One Council programme dashboard provided at Appendix 3 was a very useful and commented that it could be improved by the inclusion of project completion dates.
In the subsequent discussion, members raised several issues. Councillor Colwill queried why the Civic Centre project had moved from Amber to a Red rating, and similarly, why the Children’s Social Care project was rated red. The Chair noted that this latter project was due to close within the next month and queried whether it was now a priority to address the outstanding issues and further, whether the closure date was definitive. With regard to the Civic Centre Move project, Councillor Colwill also sought details of the associated costs and the Chair queried what preparatory training staff had received.
In response to these queries, Phil Newby advised that throughout the lifetime of a project it was expected that different RAG ratings would apply as issues or concerns arose and were negotiated. The Civic Centre project was currently rated red as the One Council Project Board felt that the facilities management tendering process should be taking place quicker. With regard to the Children Social Care and Transformation project, it was felt that it had progressed as far as it was able; however, in view of the level of service pressure, it would continue to be monitored via the Strategic Finance Group. The Project closure report will show how the main project objectives have been met and how any residual activities will be managed by the department. The One Council Programme Board will then review and endorse the Closure Report on the basis that outstanding activities are being managed by the department and financial pressures are being monitored by SFG. Projects are time limited activities and therefore cannot be kept open indefinitely.. With reference to paragraph 6.3 of the report which set out the costs of each of the One Council Projects, Peter Stachniewski, advised that the Move to the Civic Centre project was forecast to cost £291k. In order to manage the impact on services during the move, work was taking place to ensure that staff were trained and practiced in working in new ways and with new technology as necessary prior to the move.
Councillor Mitchel Murray noted that as part of the Housing Needs Transformation project and the new staffing structure, it was intended that interim appointments would be considered where posts were not filled, and queried whether these interim appointments would be consultants, agency staff or drawn from existing staff. The Chair also noted that staff for the One Council Project was predominantly drawn from internal resources and sought further details of the arrangements for cover for these staff members. Councillor Colwill queried whether the Libraries Transformation Project had delivered the anticipated savings for this financial year.
Peter Stachniewski advised that the Housing Needs Transformation Project encompassed an extensive restructure but that any interim cover for presently vacant posts would be funded within the service budget. Interim cover for staff seconded to the One Council Programme was provided if deemed necessary but was largely dependent on individual circumstances. Turning to the Libraries Transformation Project, Peter Stachniewski noted that the projected savings for the current year had not been met due to the delay in implementing the decision following the judicial review; however, it was expected that the savings for the following financial year would be achieved.
Councillor Harrison sought information regarding the SEN phase 2 project which was currently in the developmental stages. Irene Bremang advised that prior to a project moving into delivery, a Project Initiation Document (PID) was required to be developed. The PIDfor the SEN phase 2 project contained detail which needed to be updated and the Programme Management Office were currently working to assist the project board with this process. The One Council programme also encompassed new ways of working and staff needed to be supported in their learning process. At present there was no Children and Families DPB as there were some issues which still needed to be resolved. Consequently, a member of staff in the Programme Management Office had been assigned to support Children and Families projects. Phil Newby added that there were several interlocking elements driving forward change in the delivery of services for Children and Families. These included a raft of central government initiatives such as that of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) regarding complex families, and the troubled families initiative championed by the Prime Minister. As reflected within the Children’s Centre’s project, there was also an emphasis on prevention through early intervention. Evidence demonstrated that poor parenting in the early years of a child’s life led to greater difficulties in later life including increased incidences of anti-social behaviour. Similarly, there would be a movement towards developing family-centred social workers who would act to bring in the required support at the right time for a family. The council was seeking to merge these different elements into a cohesive family-centred approach. There were several different funding streams associated with these different initiatives and further work was required to identify how these could be applied and to extend appropriate partnership arrangements.
During members’ discussion, several suggestions were made by the committee. The Chair commented that it would be useful to have a diagram to illustrate the reporting structure of DPBs and with regard to Appendix 3, completion dates for the projects should be included. The Chair also requested that if, following the closure of a project there remained tasks outstanding, a report setting out these details should be submitted to the committee.
RESOLVED: -
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: