EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT FUND

Transcription

1 EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT FUND Stage 1 application expression of interest Part 1: Summary Table Bid number (for EG use) Lead bidder Brief description of the aims of the project Clear description of what the EGF money would be used to buy Partners to the project likely to commit resources East Lothian Council Colin Shand Head of Revenues and IT Tel: [email protected] To develop a balanced and common performance management framework and IT Performance Management tool across all service areas of all councils in Scotland. This framework will assist the Scottish Executive, Audit Scotland and all councils in identifying and prioritising improvement opportunities both within councils and across councils based on relevant performance data and best practise. Furthermore it will increase efficiencies in performance data collection across both local and central government and enable information to be available both locally and centrally for benchmarking purposes on a monthly basis, fulfilling Scottish Executive, Audit Scotland and individual council requirements. The framework will be designed to enable improvements in service effectiveness. Consultancy and support addressing the requirements of the Scottish Executive, Audit Scotland and the individual councils to collaboratively develop and implement a common Performance Management Framework. Consultancy and support addressing the requirement to allow for the electronic reporting of all SPI s across all the service areas of every council on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. The activities will include the configuration, implementation and deployment of a hosted performance management system, benchmarking and best practice sharing repository. This will also include electronically interfacing SPI data from every Council, to all other Councils, and to the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland Provision of a managed service to host and maintain the electronic performance management system and SPI (Statutory Performance Indicator) Submissions tools. Aberdeen City Aberdeenshire Argyll & Bute Clackmannanshire

2 Names of other organisations with whom the project has been discussed (to assist the introductions process) Evidence that suggested approach has been deployed successfully elsewhere Dumfries & Galloway Dundee East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Edinburgh Falkirk Fife Highland Glasgow Midlothian North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Perth & Kinross Renfrewshire Scottish Borders South Ayrshire Stirling West Lothian Audit Scotland Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) East Centre of Excellence (East Anglia) Improvement Agency Remaining Scottish Local Councils (to chief executives at a SOLACE meeting) Scottish Executive Strathclyde Police Welsh Assembly A framework, using a similar approach and the same underlying technology, has been already been implemented for Housing Benefit Sections across 10 Scottish Councils. The Framework and hosted IT solution is working in the following 10 Housing Benefit Sections in Scotland: Dundee East Ayrshire East Lothian East Renfrewshire Midlothian North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire Scottish Borders West Lothian A second phase is currently underway to expand the framework across England and Wales and to increase the levels of electronic statistical reporting to the Department for Work and Pensions. This expansion will also

3 Are there any restrictions to potential for enlargement of the project (i.e. technology, number of partners etc) Benefits projected from the project incorporate Clackmannanshire and Stirling Councils. No the solution is hosted and could be expanded to include all Local Authorities across the UK, all departments within the Scottish Executive including the Development department, Education department, Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning department, Environment and Rural Affairs department, Finance and Central Services department, Health department, Justice department, Legal and Parliamentary department and the Office of the Permanent Secretary. It could also cover Audit Scotland as well as be adopted by the Emergency Services, the Police and all components of the NHS. The framework could also be used to support partner working in each Council. This project will yield both tangible and intangible benefits across all the Local Authorities, Audit Scotland and the Executive. Tangible benefit realisation would include the items indicated under the following broad categories: Savings of effort with regards to collation and reporting of data o Reduction in data collection costs o Reduction in validation costs o Reduction in audit costs o Reduction in publication costs Savings due to improved performance within and across councils o Overall Performance Improvement through identification of improvement opportunities both locally and centrally, prioritisation of opportunities and the implementation of best practise. o Economies of scale o Increased revenue collection through collaboration and best practice sharing o Reduced implementation and support costs through shared service model o Reductions in exceptional cost items through collaboration and best practice sharing o Local scorecards for local measures to manage improvements at Council level. Intangible Benefits would include benefits arising from the following o Almost real time information available to Councils, Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland o Increases the accountability and ownership for performance at a local level

4 o Monthly benchmarking of Performance against agreed criteria for all SPI s across all Councils in Scotland o Visibility of performance to all in local and central government which will show how individual performance is linked to Council and Scottish Executive performance. o Improved partner working through development of joint plans, effective measurement and management of partner relationships and collaboration. Estimated financial projections Total 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Overall project cost 3.8 M 0.5 M 1.2 M 0.7 M 0.7 M 0.7 M Estimated projected benefits 15.8M 0.0 M 1.7 M 3.2 M 4.7 M 6.2 M Is a pilot required see guidance notes Additionally: why is EG funding required Does this project complement in anyway other EG work Is stage 2 development funding requested? A pilot will not be necessary as the framework is already operational for 10 Scottish Council s Housing Benefit Departments. Members of the Efficient Government Fund can evaluate the success of the National Performance Management Framework by visiting some of the sites. This initiative spans all the councils in Scotland as well as the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland. As such benefits that are realised during this project will affect central government as well as each individual council and as such, no one council would have the funds to support such a holistic initiative. An initial injection of funds is required in order to reap the benefits later. The economies of scale introduced by working with all councils, the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland means that, when compared to the individual cost of a council working in isolation, an initial higher funding stream is required but the overall cost of working collaboratively reduces significantly. Yes, by producing comprehensive benchmarking and enabling the dissemination of best practice across all areas of local government, this project will complement and monitor efficiency gains from other initiatives undertaken by local government leading to more effective and efficient services across all LA s. It will provide the performance evidence to show how the implementation of improvement initiatives across all councils, individual councils or individual service areas has led to improvements. Yes to work with Councils, the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland to identify exactly how Performance Information should be captured and to develop the proposal and finalised business case. Initial estimate not

5 Part 1: Narrative Bid more than 100 k Introduction: Continually improving performance is of key importance to all Local Authorities and their partner organisations. It is even more critical to the users of the services that they deliver. Why do we need a Performance Management Framework? Strategy formulation and the development of service plans and community plans are important, but in councils today, arguably, it s the execution that really matters. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on translating high-level statements of strategy from service plans and community plans into local actions implemented by local people. Just ask the employees of most councils today what their corporate plan is and, more specifically, the personal contribution that they have agreed to make towards it? Responses will likely range from those that have an inclination to those playing a guessing game. Typically the number able to offer factual linkage is as low as five percent. It is therefore difficult to make strategy everyone s day job if people do not know what it means for them personally. Communication is pivotal when trying to manage, measure and improve performance within Local Government. What is often overlooked, however, is the effectiveness of communications with those who invest in Local Government. If you fail to execute strategy, you will risk losing stakeholder confidence. If you fail to communicate effectively with stakeholders, you will lose their trust. The problem is that too often councils don t have the right information needed to answer tough questions, unfortunately leading to misinterpretations of circumstance. Councils must make sure that their key performance indicators (KPIs) not only drive desired behaviours and help avoid undesirable behaviours within their services, but also place equal emphasis on ensuring that the stakeholders priorities can be addressed with unquestionable accuracy. The implementation of a performance management framework must lead to required changes in working practices. For this to happen, staff need both effective leadership that shifts attitudes to accept change, and support in delivering change. They need to see why change needs to take place and the contribution that it will make in moving the organisation forward. The key here is to provide staff with the tools, support and training necessary to ensure that their personal contribution to strategy achieves its desired result. The implementation of a consistent and robust performance management framework will go a long way in achieving this. Performance management arrangements across Scottish Councils are historically fragmented and inconsistent. What is needed is one clarified and consistent process for monitoring performance; a shared Performance Framework which facilitates improvements against key targets across all councils; a collaborative communication tool to get key people, who in most cases have never met before, energised and sharing ideas about improvements; open benchmarking so reference points are established and trends visible; and in recognition of the need to help raise-the-bar

6 across all councils, an integrated knowledge management portal for sharing leading practices. It is the recognition that it is behaviour that is the difference in their approach that will make the difference in their results. What are the benefits? Return on investment calculations are often based on the time saving that a new system will provide. Generally people do not embark on performance management initiatives to save time; they do it to improve performance. The question that the councils should really be asking is, what demonstrable improvements can we make against our strategic targets, service and community plans through the deployment of a performance management initiative? Despite technology budgets for performance management tools, too few councils have actually been able to get close to realising the projected business benefits associated with the initial business case for investment. This is mainly because the initiative becomes a technology project delivered by technology people - technology must be seen as an enabler. The performance measures and relationships within the tool must be capable of being flexed on a regular basis, as the council service and community plans dictate. By empowering local people with the right tools and support to establish and maintain local objectives, performance measures, targets, accountabilities and improvement initiatives, all with a clear relationship back to service plans, you are likely to deliver identifiable and measurable performance improvements. The implementation of a common performance management tool across all Scottish Councils would provide a range of benefits to Councils, Audit Scotland and the Executive. The central data repository provided by the tool would reduce data collection costs to Councils and Audit Scotland. Most performance indicators are collected by individual Councils more frequently than the annual Audit Scotland exercise, and the Scottish Executive gathers and analyses a lot of data quarterly, such as Council Tax collection. The set of tools would allow this data to be viewed by all Councils and central agencies as it was produced. This allows for (almost) real time comparisons and allows for better performing Councils to be identified much earlier facilitating best practice sharing among Councils early in the performance cycle, leading to significant improvements across multiple service areas across Scotland. The central hosted solution would deliver economies of scale through a single investment in performance software across Scotland. Procurement, project management, training and ongoing operational costs could be minimised and not duplicated. The following table illustrates the estimated costs and projected benefits associated with the bid. It must be noted that at the moment these costs and benefits are a high level estimate and will be developed further if the bid is successful in progressing to Stage 2. Ongoing costs are based on ongoing system costs (licensing, hosting etc) of 20,000 per Council, and 60,000 on going costs for Scottish Exec, Audit Scotland etc. The initial consultancy, set up and automation costs are estimated at 1.0m.

7 Efficiency savings are based on 30 Councils producing efficiency savings of 1,000 across a range of 50 KPIs each year form benchmarking and identifying good practice. KPI production savings are calculated at 100 for 50 KPIs for 30 Councils, with central collation and publication cost savings of 25,000 per annum for Audit Scotland and 25,000 per Annum for the Executive. Element Estimates Totals 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Hosted Performance Management Costs 2.8 M 0.0M 0.7 M 0.7 M 0.7 M 0.7 M Enabler and Benefits 15.0 M SPI 0.0 M 1.5 M 3.0 M 4.5 M 6.0 M submissions Manager KPI Production Benefits 0.8 M 0.2M 0.2M 0.2M 0.2M Consultancy Costs 0.1 M 0.1 M to develop stage 2 bid Benefits Consultancy to implement proposal Costs Benefits 0.9 M 0.4 M 0.5 M Totals Costs 3.8 M 0.5 M 1.2 M 0.7 M 0.7 M 0.7 M Benefits 15.8 M 0.0 M 1.7 M 3.2 M 4.7 M 6.2 M Proposed Solution To de-risk the implementation of a Scottish Performance Management framework, it is proposed to adopt a hosted solution which therefore avoids: the need for expensive software licenses; complex systems integration; technology installation; and unwieldy support and maintenance contracts. It is deployed securely over the web straight to user s desktops (via GSI/GSX) and therefore lends itself to being extremely scaleable. As an illustration of this, the core technology aspects of the performance framework for the ten authorities of the Housing Benefit Consortium were configured and deployed in eight weeks flat. This is unparalleled when compared to traditional application deployment methods and left the consortium free to concentrate on performance without worrying about risky implementation headaches.

8 Essential components of the Project o Standardised Performance Management Framework and Hosted Performance Management Portal o Hosted IT Solution for Council Performance Management and Benchmarking

9 o Hosted SPI Submissions Manager Aspiren KPI submissions o manager New Delete Save Print Submit Create.CSV STATS 124 STATS JAN 2005 System generated Quarter Type of report: STATS124 From: 01 / 01 / 2005 To: 31 / 01 / 2005 Jan 2005 Working Age non-income Support / Non JSA (income based) STATS JAN 2005 STATS JAN 2005 Housing Benefit LA RSL Private (excl RSL) Council Tax Benefit DQ1 Jan 2005 DQ2 Jan 2005 DQ3 Jan 2005 DQ4 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 March 2005 Quarter Edit values Business validation Audit log Quarter STATS121 Date Rule ref Error description Field Value 12/03/2005 R024-STATS124 Total number of days Working 35 to process change of age non-income circumstances across different splits must support change of equal the sum the number of days in the various splits of circumstances 13/03/2005 R024-STATS124 Total change of Working age non-income across different splits number of days to process 42 circumstances must support change of equal the sum the number of days in the various splits of circumstances Total number of days 64 to process change of circumstances STATS122 Administration KPI reports Re-run validation >>> Number of outstanding validation errors: 1