Agenda item

The Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Breckon CC, has been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission received a report of the Director of Corporate Resources, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the performance of East Midlands Shared Services in 2021/22.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman thanked Mr Breckon CC, Lead Member for Resources, for attending for this item.

Arising from questions and discussion the following points were made:

(i)             In response to concerns raised regarding the functionality issues outlined in the report, Members noted that an extensive procurement process had been undertaken to ensure the system provided all that was needed for both the County Council and its partner, Nottingham City Council.  However, as the system was implemented, and detailed testing undertaken, some functionality gaps were identified.  For example, the system did not cater for some of the more complex, technical cases with regard to pension payments.

(ii)            Members were assured that a stabilisation project had been put in place to address the gaps identified over the next 12 to 18 months.  In the meantime, system work arounds had been adopted. 

(iii)          It was suggested that the Committee could not properly evaluate the success of service based on the information provided and that a comparison between the cost and benefits of providing these services in house compared to them being outsourced would be beneficial. 

(iv)          It was noted that the system upgrade would have been required however the service was to be delivered.  Outsourcing the service had been considered prior to the procurement of the new system.  However, it would not be beneficial to conduct such a review during the system change.  The Director provided assurance that opportunities to improve, automate and outsource were considered at regular intervals as a matter of standard practice.

(v)           Members noted that as a joint service with Nottingham City Council EMSS did have to account to a joint committee involving representatives from both organisations on a quarterly basis.

(vi)          It was emphasised that the system had not worked as effectively as expected for 0.2% of employees (i.e. a total of 268).  That meant that for 99.8% of people the system had worked well.  Given the size of the system changes introduced the Lead Member for Resources suggested that this should be regarded as a success.  Added reassurance was provided that those officers that had been affected had not suffered financially, as their position had been rectified immediately with same day payments having been made. 

(vii)         In response to questions about whether the system now delivered and met the Council’s requirements, the Director confirmed that all issues had been addressed in terms of work arounds being temporarily put in place to ensure staff would be paid accurately and on time.  Whilst this was taking extra effort in the background, a plan was in place to gradually back out of those processes as system upgrades were introduced.

(viii)       In response to a number of questions regarding legal issues that arose out of the procurement, the Assistant Head of Law advised that ultimately an agreement had been reached with the software provider.  This agreement contained confidentiality provisions.  However, these did not apply to the extent to which disclosure was required to comply with governmental accountability implications.  It was therefore permissible for limited information to be provided to the Commission as follows:

·       There had been a significant procurement of software that covered a number of different modules (finance, procurement, HR and payroll) from a large organisation following a public procurement exercise.   One of the reasons the new software had been required was because the previous software was no longer going to be supported.

·       Demonstrations had been given to Nottingham City Council and the County Council on what the system could deliver as part of that process. 

·       Once the software had been implemented, it was determined that the system did not quite deliver what had been represented would be provided and so a dispute ensued.

·       Lawyers from Nottingham City Council and the County Council were involved in pursuing the claim.  Ultimately, a settlement was agreed following extensive correspondence between the parties.  The Councils had secured expert external advice on the matter and all relevant issues were explored extensively. 

·       A positive resolution was subsequently found involving a financial settlement.  In parallel with the discussions between the parties, many of the technical issues were resolved through the release of software upgrades.

(ix)          It was noted that the recent audit of the service could only provide moderate or limited assurance.  It was noted that access to some parts of the system had been affected following its implementation which meant the usual audit testing could not be carried out.  These issues had now been addressed and it an improved audit was therefore expected next year.

RESOLVED:

That the update on the performance of East Midlands Shared Services in 2021/22 be noted.