(a)

an opportunity had arisen to merge the Co-operative Centre of Operations (CCO) and the People and Organisation Development (P&OD) programmes; the programme had a slimmer structure and had been re-focused on the benefits;

(b)

projects were already working closely together to ensure that the transformation process was carried out in parallel across the programme to produce a common target operating model design and delivery;

(c)

the adopted approach would ensure maximum synergies were found and that efficiencies were driven out in the future;

(d)

the merge of both the programmes had not altered the aims of the Co-operative Centre of Operations programme which included -

?

corporate function transformation;

?

delivery  management transformation;

?

Support service transformation;

(e)

by focusing on the financial benefits, the realisation of the overall vision would be delayed; this delay was acceptable as there was a need to focus on the cash savings;

(f)

the aims would be delivered through the establishment of improved services which would support and facilitate a broad range of activities;

(g)

the new People and Organisation Development programme had been aligned to the Co-operative Centre of Operations’ blueprint to enable the original outcomes;

(h)

the ‘Ulrich’ model had been used for both the HR and Finance projects, to ensure the synergies were captured across the project boundaries;

(i)

the scope of the programme included –

?

Human Resources and workforce delivery;

?

Finance;

?

Business Support;

?

Assure;

?

Advise and Enable;

?

Asset and Facility Management;

?

Accommodation and infrastructure;

?

Service Integration Management

?

Smart working;

(j)

following the merge of the programmes, the annual resource cost would reduce by £298,025 from 2015/16 to 2015/17.

(k)

officers were confident that the re-focus of the former Co-operative Centre of Operations (CCO) would improve and deliver the original principles of the programme, although the challenges arising from these work streams could not be under estimated;

(l)

the consequence of merging the two programmes had led to a delay in some of the projects however, this would not result in them being more expensive;

(m)

there had been a slight delay in progressing the HR and Workforce Development project; the focus of the project was to enable HR services to be fit for purpose prior to considering partnering and/or selling its services; work would need to be undertaken to understand the cost base and the type of services that could be offered;

(n)

the ‘Ulrich’ model (contained in the report) best described the Council’s future structure; more services would be provided through self-service and automation, with fewer staff being required for customer contact and transactional processing, specialist advice and services and strategic policy, business partners and client function;

(o)

customers would already be aware of the transformed services that the Council provided; the introduction of the 1^st Stop Shop and the delivery of more services through libraries across the City were two examples; work was already underway to relocate the central library to Taylor Maxwell House; services were already being delivered in a different way through Delt Shared Services Ltd and CATER.ed;

(p)

in order to achieve the programme savings, the number of staff would need to be significantly reduced; individuals would be supported through this process by using the career transition scheme which would provide support, access to training, interview and CV skills; the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme had also been offered to staff undergoing service reviews;

(q)

the new People and Organisation Development programme would focus on a number of outcomes which included an organisation fit for purpose,  transformation of corporate and support services to be more efficient and effective, improved internal tools and processes to ensure the services the Council buys or contracts were consistently managed and a workforce that had the right skills and people in place;

(r)

the non-financial benefits of the merged programmes remained the same;

(s)

currently the ratio of desks to staff varied across the authority; it was the aim to introduce a ratio of seven desks per 10 members of staff;

(t)

the information detailed within the report on the improved processing times for new housing benefit claims related to April – August 2015; it was considered that the information provided to the Audit Committee of the worsening position related to 2014/15;

(u)

smart working would represent a cultural shift in managing staff however, there was scope, depending on working patterns to be able to facilitate more people working at home; the Council was currently engaging with other authorities, who had gone through a similar process, to draft a model that best fitted the Council’s needs;

(v)

it was considered that it would be more beneficial to invite the Operations Director of Delt Shared Services Ltd to a future meeting of the Board, as he would be able to provide more detailed responses.

(1) 

to receive –

?

an update report on the progress of the merged People and Organisation Development (P&OD) programme at its meeting scheduled for March 2016;

?

a progress report on the former Co-operative Centre of Operations (CCO) projects following a re-focus, to a future meeting;

?

a report on Delt Shared Services Ltd (detailing the delivery of its existing customers’ requirements and the progress made in growing the business);

?

information on the costs, benefits and milestones of the transformation programme at a future meeting;

(2)

to invite the newly appointed Assistant Director for HR and OD to a future meeting of the Board, in order to scrutinise HR smart working policies/strategies.