Category Archives: public services

Mutuals Briefing updated

By David Bicknell

One of the most popular areas of Campaign4Change is Mutuals Briefing, a digest of useful information and links around mutuals and mutualisation.

Mutuals Briefing has now been updated to reflect recent announcements by the Cabinet Office covering a report on Mutual Pathfinders, the Mutuals Taskforce Evidence Paper, and the launch of the Mutuals Information Service.  You can also find links to stories covering mutuals issues at the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, and at the Defence Equipment & Support ( DE&S) arm of the Ministry of Defence.

FAST Ltd link up with Civica offers prospect of public sector software licence savings

By David Bicknell

Managing software assets effectively is one way of reining in the public sector’s IT costs, which is why a newly created partnership between software asset management (SAM) and IT compliance specialist FAST Ltd and Civica Services looks like an interesting tie-up.

The new partnership will give FAST customers access to Civica’s specialist advice and guidance across a broad scope of software licensing and fulfilment services, offering users the ability to mitigate future compliance risk, save time and money and meet their business objectives.

The Civica Services relationship will enable FAST Ltd to offer a range of services to its customers, helping them improve efficiency through more effective software lifecycle management.

Since 2003, FAST Ltd has provided a best practice and structured programme around licence compliance for businesses spanning all sectors and sizes.  One of its customers, services company Amey cut its hardware and software bill by £150,000 by managing, monitoring and auditing its IT estate.

In recent years FAST Ltd’s portfolio of services has expanded to include SAM, which led to customers requesting additional services such as ICT Strategy Planning Services and Software Fulfilment Services. 

Matthew Barnes, Managing Director for FAST Ltd  said, “The partnership of our two organisations is an exciting development for our customers and helps us to reach our goal of providing a ‘one stop shop’ for Software Asset Management  and IT Compliance. ”

One of Civica’s public sector customers is Gravesham Borough Council which faced a challenge to ensure the best use of its software assets given the government drive for efficiency.

The authority brought in Civica Services to review its Microsoft infrastructure for compliance. It also wanted advice on using the Public Sector Agreement—PSA09—for more cost-effective software licensing devised by the government and Microsoft. Under this licensing model, Gravesham has saved £46,700, equivalent to 80 per cent of its annual software spend. It is making a 74 per cent return on investment (ROI) from the Microsoft Software Asset Management review—more than its original target.

The council now has a three-year roadmap for IT development which includes a refresh of all desktop software and a virtualised infrastructure to enhance management and cut operational overheads. 

Some of the key issues around SAM and software licensing were discussed at FAST Ltd’s annual conference at Twickenham a few weeks ago.

Mutuals: asking the right questions to pick mutual winners in local government

By David Bicknell

Francis Maude’s recent pronouncements on mutuals, the launch of the Mutual Pathfinders report and the availability of the mutuals information service offer the prospect of greater activity around public sector mutuals, though the MoD’s decision not to consider a mutual option for its Defence Equipment & Supplies arm doesn’t say much for joined-up government.

With local government in the throes of reorganisation, this article perhaps provides some insight that could help councils measure the suitability of a service to operate as a mutual, and how they can determine if that service could run as a successful, stand-alone business.

The work that the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham has done in setting up its mutual might serve as a good benchmark.

Hammersmith & Fulham mutual Pathfinder on track

CSC confident on £2bn NPfIT deal says The Times

The Times reports today that CSC is confident that the Department of Health will not terminate the supplier’s contracts despite the Government’s pledge to dismantle the national programme.

The paper says that “taxpayers will foot the bill for a further £2bn on a failed NHS IT project even though the Government has already pulled the plug on it”.

It adds that the “American technology company Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) has boasted to Wall Street that it expects an extension of its contract to provide electronic patient records despite failing to deliver a fully functional version of its software”.

In a series of articles on the NPfIT, The Times suggests that the Government is locked into CSC, at least until 2017.

“The Government’s pledge to dismantle the failed NHS programme to computerise patient records is in tatters because it cannot afford to break its contractual commitments and start a search for alternative suppliers”.

The Times quotes a CSC filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November which says: “Based upon events to date, the Company does not anticipate that the NHS will terminate the contract.”

CSC, the Department of Health and the Cabinet Office are still discussing a memorandum of understanding which may end with the supplier’s cutting £764m from its NPfIT contracts, leaving about £2.1bn in place.

CSC discloses in its SEC filing that the Memorandum of Understanding anticipates that the contract term will be extended one year to June 2017 and that CSC anticipates revenue of £1.5bn to £2bn over the remaining term.

With certain amendments “ the contract remains profitable and the Company would recover its investment,” says CSC in its filing.

But MP Richard Bacon, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, has received Parliamentary replies to his questions on the costs of NPfIT deployments at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and North Bristol NHS Trust which show that the costs of installing and maintaining a system under national programme contracts are more than twice that of systems bought by trusts outside of the NPfIT.

Health Minister Simon Burns said in a reply to Bacon that the costs of a Cerner Millennium deployment at the North Bristol NHS Trust are £15.2m for deployment and an annual service charge of £2m. This brings the total cost of the Cerner system over seven years to about £29m, which is more than three times the £8.2m price of a similar deployment outside of the NPfIT at University Hospitals Bristol Foundation Trust.

At Morecambe Bay, the trust’s costs of being involved with the NPfIT (including the deployment of CSC’s Lorenzo 1.9 system) are £6.2m, according to Burns in his reply to Bacon, whereas the typical internal trust costs of deploying of a non-NPfIT system, excluding the cost of the system itself but including training, project management and additional corporate reporting tools, are about £1m-£2m.

Is the Department of Health locked into CSC?

CSC in its filing to the SEC says that the NHS, when considering its options of maintaining or terminating the contract, will “consider costs and risks that NHS may incur over and above those related to termination fees”.

These include:

– damages and costs that may be payable to CSC

– the cost of initiating and managing a public tender, procedure or procedures to obtain one or more suitable replacement suppliers

– the operational risk of switching suppliers at this stage in the contract with CSC

– the cost of alternative suppliers

– the cost of obtaining exit management services from CSC to ensure an orderly transition to one or more replacement suppliers.

In addition, said CSC in its filing, if the NHS terminated the contract for convenience, possible claims that the Company has against NHS include “claims for compensation due to delays and excess costs caused by NHS or for contractual deployment delay remedies or for costs associated with change.

If the NHS had terminated the entire contract for convenience with immediate effect at September 30, 2011, the termination fee would have been capped at approximately £430m.

CSC would also be entitled by way of termination fee to a sum to compensate for the profit that CSC would have earned over the following 12 months had the contract not been terminated.

CSC recognised in the filing, however, that the signing of a new NPfIT deal was uncertain.

Lorenzo “not right yet”

The Times quotes Dr Simon Eccles, the medical director of Connecting for Health, as saying “Lorenzo has had an extremely painful gestation. Lorenzo may yet be a great success because it is a brilliant bit of software but they haven’t got it right yet.”

In an editorial on its NPfIT investigations, The Times said that government IT failures have in common the fact that “we don’t really know who was to blame”. It says:

“Nobody took responsibility and nobody apologised. It is perhaps too much to hope that there will not be more disasters. But if there are, someone must carry the can.”

NPfIT to be dismantled – brick by brick

Maude unveils Mutual Pathfinder progress report and launch of mutuals information service

By David Bicknell

The government has announced that it will provide new support to help staff-led mutual organisations set up and spin out from the public sector.

The government wants public sector staff, tax payers and service users to benefit from the increased innovation, higher productivity and better customer satisfaction mutuals often create.

To help encourage and foster the development of mutuals, the government has launched  a new £10million programme Mutual Support Programme (MSP) to provide business and professional services to groups of staff or existing mutual organisations. 

A consortium of experts in employee ownership will manage the programme to purchase HR, legal, financial, tax and business planning services to develop the most promising new mutuals.

Public sector staff who want to take control of the services they run can access a new Mutuals Information Service.

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said, “The Government is getting support in place, developing a pipeline of innovative new mutual ‘spin outs’ where employees have real power. The evidence is clear – mutuals can provide better, more efficient public services.

“It’s time for politicians and public sector bosses to cut the apron strings and trust frontline staff to make decisions. They are the real experts, they know what’s important to the people who use the service and they know how things can be done better.”

The Mutuals Support Programme will also fund support to help organisations tackle common barriers and share information so that many others benefit from the work.

The Government has also published the first progress report from the Government’s Mutual Pathfinder programme which highlights barriers that staff have faced, including a tendency for contract tenders to make requirements beyond what is legally necessary such as demanding an organisation has a multi-million pound bond before taking the contract.

Maude was critical of such requirements, saying, “Too often tender processes go way beyond what’s necessary, asking for massive bonds up front and insisting that the organisations have existed for years. Iron cladding contracts bars all but a few big companies from winning them. It is a fundamental barrier to creating the vibrant, innovative and competitive public services this country needs.

“Through our Mystery Shopper exercise mutuals and other small businesses can tell us about discriminatory practice. We will intervene when problems are exposed. I do understand that Commissioners may feel stuck in the middle. Where they feel they are forced to over complicate things they can let us know through the Tell us How website and we will address the problem.”

Professor Julian Le Grand, Chair of the Mutuals Taskforce, said: “The Mutuals Taskforce has gathered evidence for why employee-led mutuals make sense in public services. The next phase of our work will be focused on making the case across the public sector and stimulating demand.”

Maude and Le Grand made the announcements while visiting the largest Pathfinder mutual, Anglian Community Enterprise, which provides over 40 community health services and a range of learning disability, GP and dental services for the population of North and North-East Essex.

MoD rules out mutual option

Hammersmith & Fulham mutual Pathfinder on track for ‘early 2012’ launch

By David Bicknell

I recently  spoke with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham about their mutual ‘Pathfinder’ project, which is due to be up and running in 2012.

The current plan is for all three boroughs  – the other two are Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster – to join the mutual in ‘early 2012’.

The three boroughs are now developing the full business plan for the mutual and are looking at the sustainability of the project, with a shadow board of directors meeting regularly to discuss and work out the finer details about how to bring the three teams together across the boroughs.

Other work is going on to finalise the tri-borough mutual vision statement and create a company name (word has it that the current working title is 3BM: Three Borough Mutual) and logo ,which all staff members have been able to contribute to  to reinforce the employee ownership of the scheme.

Meanwhile a mentor from the John Lewis Partnership is working with the fledgling mutual to provide what’s described as ‘invaluable support’ on the shareholding model.

Less than third of civil servants on strike says Maude

By Tony Collins

The Cabinet Office says that “significantly less” than a third of civil servants are taking strike action today.

Francis Maude, Cabinet Office minister, said: “I want to thank the majority of dedicated and committed public sector workers who have turned up to work today to deliver essential services.”

He added that early indications indicate that the majority of key public services remain open.

Why those driving the creation of public sector mutuals are Investors, not Conservers

By David Bicknell

All those considering setting up public sector mutuals like Hammersmith & Fulham  – and those in the middle of running successful mutual pathfinders such as Central Surrey Health – know the importance of investing in their vision and backing it.

That’s why I liked this piece by Craig Dearden-Philips, who while discussing third sector organisations, makes a distinction between Investors and Conservers.

“My guess though is that the people who make the biggest difference in the world , certainly socially, are almost all on Investors. These people are not ‘born’. They make a choice about how to live. They know that the Investment Principle works – and they live by it.

“Of course, Investment isn’t just a one way street. Investments frequently don’t pay off. In people, in relationships, in business. You get burned as much as you get it right. And investments that are not made judiciously, in people or ventures that are wrong to begin with, are not defensible either. Being investment-minded isn’t about being a soft-heart. But it is about understanding the powerful link between investment and reward and making this, somehow, a feature in the way you operate.”

Wise words.

The capital, contractual, governance and leadership questions facing creative councils over mutuals

By David Bicknell

There are some good points raised in this article in about the challenges facing creative councils who may be considering the adoption of new mutual models.

It raises some useful questions around capital, governance, contracts, relationships, management, growth, leadership and how the private sector can help.

Worth a read.

Officials pay supplier invoices – then raise purchase orders

This morning the National Audit Office has published a report that says the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in up to 35% of cases, raises its purchase order after it gets the invoice from suppliers.

It’s unlikely that any private sector company could survive if it didn’t know what it owed, didn’t know what it had bought, and had to wait for an invoice from the supplier to raise the purchase order.

Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO, says in his report today:

“While I welcome the considerable improvements that the Commission has made in its controls over procurement, there are still areas where it needs to make improvements. In particular, up to 35% of the Commission’s purchase orders are still not raised until after the Commission has received an invoice for goods and services.

“This means that Commission staff are committing funds without going through proper processes and are avoiding some of the checking processes. Consequently the Commission does not have an accurate understanding of its committed expenditure at any one point in time.

“The Chief Executive has made it clear that he takes noncompliance with these processes seriously such that in cases of repeated non-compliance delegations will be withdrawn.”

A common practice? 

Is this absence of proper accounting worryingly common in central government and its agencies, particularly on IT contracts?

Auditors told us that in the case of NPfIT contracts they found some invoices that were paid when they came in, awaiting reconciliation with any past paperwork.

This, perhaps, ties in with the experiences of Conservative MP Richard Bacon, a member of Public Accounts Committee who, when asking civil servants for a breakdown of IT spending has, in the past, been referred to the department’s IT supplier.

On the C-Nomis IT project for prisons, the National Offender Management Service paid £161m without keeping any record of what the payments were for.

The Cabinet Office wants to cut the £17bn or so spent every year on public sector IT. But before departments, agencies and other organisations cut their costs they’ll need to know what those costs are. Maybe they should ask their major IT suppliers? We wonder if the domination of GovIT by a small number of suppliers has got to the stage where it’s the suppliers managing the civil service IT budgets. If that’s the case it is not the fault of suppliers.