PAPER
E1
Purpose
: For Decision
REPORT
TO THE EXECUTIVE
Date : 3 NOVEMBER 2004
Title : PROCUREMENT OF THE ISLE OF
WIGHT SUPPORTING PEOPLE TEAM SUPPORTING PEOPLE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SPIT)
SYSTEM
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR
ADULT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 15 November 2004
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
1.
In the light
of the operational decision not to proceed with implementation of the current
Supporting People IT System, to determine to purchase an alternative system and
to waive Contract Standing Orders in order to do so.
BACKGROUND
2.
The
Supporting People IT system, supplied by OLM Ltd and called CareSupport, was
implemented during Autumn 2002 and nominally went live on 1st April
2003, following completion of data migration from the interim SPLS (SPINTLS)
system. However, the process of migrating data and configuring the OLM system
did not achieve a functional system.
Although the system continued ‘live’ from that date, it was to all
intents and purposes unusable and was therefore not handed over to the team as
a fit for purpose system.
3.
As the system
was not considered operational SP team efforts were directed towards the launch
of the Supporting People project whilst waiting for OLM to deliver a useable
product. An illustration of this is
that it was incapable of producing any useful Reports. Use of the system was
confined to entry of Client, Provider etc. details, as system output was
extremely limited.
4.
By autumn
2003 the system had fallen into disuse. SP Team members were unable to use it
as a working tool and believed that the system was essentially
dysfunctional. Problems included
inability to get output from the system, login problems, different versions of
the application on different PC’s, and lack of DBA/Application admin resource.
5.
A review of
the project was carried out in December 2003, remedial work was carried out in
spring 2004, and the system made useable as a data repository for SP clients,
providers, contracts, etc by 1st April 2004. The review process however highlighted the
lack of any obvious business advantages to the team of using the system,
particularly as the system is not capable of implementing the new (“Phase II”)
requirements imposed nationally on SP teams by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
6.
A Supporting
People Information Technology (SPIT) project board was initiated, chaired by
the Head of Housing and Community Support Services, comprising representatives
from the Supporting People Team, central IT, Social Services IT and Internal Audit. Successive SPIT project boards (spring,
summer 2004) identified the purchase of an alternative system for the SP team
as the best way ahead.
7.
There is
clear evidence that OLM works best in environments where the Supporting People
software is operated in conjunction with a main social care suite. The Council has chosen instead to introduce
SWIFT as the main Social Services software package. The result is that OLM’s SP package in a stand-alone capacity is
cumbersome, lacks flexibility and also lacks functionality. The experience of this council is also
mirrored in other authorities which have procured the stand alone SP
package. They too, have largely
migrated to other suppliers.
8.
Possible
alternative systems to OLM have been evaluated. Two, the SWIFT system (as currently being implemented by Social
Services) and the SPOCC system, from Oxford Computer Consultants, were
shortlisted. Social Services IT and the SP Team reviewed these systems and
agree that the SPOCC system is the most suitable for the SP Team.
9.
This position
has been reached having had full regard to the current functionality offered by
both SWIFT and SPOCC, a full financial appraisal and the views of the system
users. It also recognises that at
present, the SPOCC system is best set up to be able to cope with imminent
changes within the SP regime.
10.
Implementation
has also been a significant factor, with SPOCC offering a much quicker
implementation process.
11.
Appendix 1 is
an assurance report endorsing the purchase of the SPOCC system as a result of
the evaluation described above. Appendix 2 sets out the business case for the
purchase of a Supporting People IT system.
12.
Clearly, the
process of procuring a suitable system for SP has not been without
problems. There are lessons from which
the Council can learn and benefit future procurement exercises. It is therefore suggested that the Executive request that the Resources Select Committee add to
their work program an enquiry into how the initial procurement failed to
deliver it’s objectives, and to make recommendations to the Executive in
relation to similar future procurements.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
14. The Supporting People Steering Group,
Supporting People IT Project Board and the SWIFT Project board have been kept
fully informed of problems associated with implementation of the CareSupport
System, the review process, and the proposal by the SP IT Project board to
replace CareSupport with SPOCC.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
15.
The Supporting People regime is a statutory
requirement by central government. From its inception, the government, via the
ODPM has set out a very prescriptive regime which it has required to be
followed completely. This includes
methods of reporting and performance management. Further detailed amendments to this regime are in the process of
being introduced later in 2004 which demands the provision of information
through an electronic system to a central data depository run by the ODPM.
16.
In reference to this, the ODPM have recently written
to the council, indicating that our future administration grant may be
threatened if we are unable to resolve the computer system in the near future.
CONSULTATION
17. The Supporting People Steering Group, Supporting People IT
Project Board and the SWIFT Project board have been kept fully informed of
problems associated with implementation of the CareSupport System, the review
process, and the proposal by the SP IT Project board to replace CareSupport
with SPOCC. IWC Audit have been fully
involved in the review process. A
report from IWC Audit is appended.
FINANCIAL/
LEGAL, CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
17.
Cost of the
proposed replacement system and exit from the existing contract can be met from
existing budget reserved for implementation of an IT system for the SP
team. A fully costed business plan is
attached to this report as Appendix 2.
19.
The
implication for IWC’s Adult and Community Services Directorate and the
Supporting People strategy is that an improved quality of service can be
expected, government targets for provision of service performance indicators
will be met, and government funding for IWC’s Supporting People initiative on
the Isle of Wight will be secured.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
20.
It is
expected that exit from the existing contract can be achieved by agreement with
the current contractor and without financial penalty.
21.
The power to
procure such an IT system is incidental to the primary functions of Supporting
People. There is a statutory obligation to achieve and demonstrate best value,
and a constitutional requirement for the Executive determine whether to waive
Contract Standing Orders, on a recommendation from the directors Group.
OPTIONS
22.
In addition to the recommendations there are two
options:
·
Continuing with the current ad hoc arrangements. This
is not offered as a recommendation for the reasons set out in the business case
at Appendix 2.
·
Delaying implementation of the system until a full
procurement exercise has taken place. There is not an active market in the
supply of suitable software solutions and the delay and cost of a competitive
procurement exercise would not result in the purchase of a more cost effective
system.
EVALUATION/RISK
MANAGEMENT
23.
The Council has a responsibility to ensure best value
in relationship to both resource expenditure and service delivery. In this instance, there is clear evidence
that a waiver of standing orders achieves both objectives.
24.
The need to implement an effective data management
system is unquestionable. Action will
be taken by the ODPM if this is not in place quickly. Following in-depth analysis by appropriate officers, it is clear
that the OLM system originally commissioned does not deliver our
requirements. It is also clear, that of
other systems on the market, the SPOCC system is currently best placed to offer
the required functionality.
25.
There is a real danger that further delay in
implementing a new system will result in short term impact, through the ODPM
withdrawing money from the council on the basis that we are not delivering our
agreed outcomes. Of equal concern,
there may be longer term damage when the Supporting People inspection is
conducted in 2005.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is
recommended that the Executive:
1. Waive
Contract Standing Orders
2. Authorise
the Head of Housing and Community Services to negotiate the purchase of a
Supporting People IT system from SPOCC
3. Request
the Resources Select Committee add to it’s work programme an enquiry into the initial procurement
of the Supporting People IT System appears not to have delivered its
objectives, and to make recommendations to the Executive in relation to
similar future procurements.
|
BACKGROUND PAPERS
SPIT Project Board Business
Case V3/5, SPIT Review Project – Product Completion (22/7/04)
APPENDICES
ATTACHED
Appendix 1 Report by Ken May, IWC Audit, on SPIT
Project Board recommendation to purchase SPOCC from OCC Ltd.
Appendix 2 SPIT Project Board Business Case V3/5, SPIT Review Project –
Product Completion (22/7/04)
Contact
Point : Martyn Pearl, F 823061 e-mail [email protected]
|
MARTYN
PEARL
Head
of Housing and Community Services
|
GORDON
KENDALL Portfolio Holder for Adult and Community Services
|
Appendix 1
|
Assurance
report on the decision to select the OCC Ltd system “SPOCC”
|
Introduction
This report was
requested at the SPIT Review Project Board on 22nd July 2004
following the decision to select the SPOCC system from OCC Ltd. This decision was the culmination of the
review that was conducted to identify the most appropriate solution for the
needs of the Supporting People team headed by Yvonne May. The purpose of this report is to give
assurance that the decision was properly made, supported by an adequate audit
trail.
Conclusion
We conclude that
the decision was properly made and that there is an appropriate audit trail to
substantiate the process leading up to the decision to select the SPOCC
system. This is qualified only to the
extent that a number of tasks remain outstanding, which are listed in the Board
minutes for the meeting on 22nd July 2004, and these need to be
completed satisfactorily. This report
does not endorse the product selected, the SPOCC system, it is only to be taken
as assurance that the decision to select the product was properly made and
evidenced.
The Key Factors
In arriving at
the decision to select the SPOCC system the following key factors needed to be
taken into account and duly considered:
q
In making this decision, the Board
effectively made the decision to abandon the current OLM CareSupport system,
recognising that this represents a significant sunk cost without material
realised benefit
q
In selecting the SPOCC system,
additional costs will be incurred to integrate the system with the new SWIFT
system (in due course), costs that would not have been incurred if the SWIFT SP
module had been selected
However, the key deciding factor was the “fitness for
purpose” of the system and the ability of the users to realise the benefits of
moving to a computerised system from the largely manual system that is
currently in place. The assessment of
the functionality of the options presented showed that the SPOCC system is the
better system from the users’ point of view (and to that extent, the customers’
also). We conclude that the principal
basis for the decision was sound
We conclude that
the factors listed above, and a number of others, including, for example, the
capacity of the SP Team to implement any of the solutions, were duly
considered.
Appropriate
consideration was given to the issue of “interoperability”. Whilst there is no immediate need to
interface the two systems, there will be a need in time. The ability of the SPOCC and SWIFT systems
to “talk” to each other was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the respective
users and due consideration was given to the cost of the development of the
interface (largely a SWIFT cost), particularly in light of the need to
interface other systems with SWIFT in due course.
The key risks
associated with each implementation option were identified and assessed
together with the mitigation actions to manage the risk, with assigned
responsibility. Our recommendation, in
the light of the decision, is to restate/refresh the risk register for the
option selected and to ensure that the actions identified to manage the risks
are built into the implementation plan.
For further
information, please contact me on extn 3046.
ICT Auditor