Summary of delivery options for C3i

Report: 9
Date: 10 May 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

At its February meeting the MPA asked the C3i project team to assess various configurations for service delivery.

The C3i project team, the C3i Steering Committee and MPS Management Board reviewed the options and decided that the 'Do Minimum' option (Option 1) did not meet the operational requirements and that the single call centre options did not provide the necessary resilience and business continuity. The Management Board expressed a view that if finance was not an issue, then in pursuit of the borough based focus and the partnership activities of the Crime & Disorder Act, centralised call handling with borough based despatching (Option 4) would be their preferred delivery configuration.

However, recognising that the cost of Option 4 is significantly above the agreed affordability limit, the Management Board selected the three-centre configuration (Option 8) as the best affordable option.

This paper looks in detail at the following options which the Management Board consider meet the operational requirements:

• Borough Based Despatch (Option 4) - This option will centralise all call handling (both 999 and non-999), pan-London despatch and SOR into two new centres (Clapham and Hendon). Borough control rooms will continue to handle local despatch.
• Regional Despatch (Option 5) - This option provides borough designated despatching from the two new centres and two additional despatching centres.
• Centralised into two centres (Option 7)- This option provides borough designated despatching from two new centralised locations. The two new centres are likely to be Clapham and Hendon.
• Centralised into three centres (Option 8) - This option provides borough designated despatching from three centralised locations. The three centralised location are likely to be Hendon, Lambeth and Bow Road.

It also provides information on the 'Do Minimum' (Option 1) for comparison purposes only.

A. Recommendation

1. Management Board recommend to the MPA that:

• if the issue of funding is left to one side, then given operational considerations, Option 4 would be the solution recommended for adoption;
• however, if the MPA believe that the funding necessary for Option 4 is not available, then the solution that is recommended for adoption is Option 8 as it comes within the already agreed funding envelope.

B. Supporting information

The need for C3i

1. The Metropolitan Police service (MPS) has a first class reputation for responding to emergencies and providing a policing service to London. It faces a number of significant challenges in an ever changing and increasingly complex environment with growing demand and changing priorities. These include:

• changes in the demographic and ethnic make-up of the population;
• increasing and varied public demand for police services;
• providing operational officers with appropriate information and logistic support to maintain public and officer safety;
• making best use of limited resources to deliver an effective service to the public;
• increasing levels and costs of civil litigation against the MPS, reinforcing the need for processes that help identify bad practices and rebut unfounded allegations;
• the need for continuous provision of mission-critical support services;
• reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in support of Best Value model of policing;
• complying with future legislative change.

2. In order to operate in this changing and evolving environment the MPS is constantly looking for innovative ways to provide best value in meeting requests for police services. The development of a sophisticated command and control operation is an essential element of the current MPS strategy to effectively manage public demand.

3. Londoners regard responding to emergencies as the most important aspect of police service delivery. In support of this requirement C3i will:

• deliver a consistent, high quality and speedy response to their requests for assistance;
• provide high quality information to support the intelligent and appropriate deployment of police resources;
• provide patrolling officers with accurate and timely information allowing them to perform their duties safely and effectively;
• ensure front line leadership is better able to deal with critical incidents and deliver a high level of performance;
• provide enabling technologies that will release the police officer from the need to constantly return to the station to input and extract information in support of the policing functions;
• deliver the platform for managing changes to the way in which policing is delivered to the people of London;
• provide information to facilitate analysis in support of local authority initiatives on crime reduction in support of the Crime and Disorder Act.

4. The current CAD will have to replaced by 2006 and the current timescales for PSRCS require MPS to identify the location for housing the radio switches by 1st quarter 2003 with service migration completed by end 2004.

C3i business process vision

5. The project works on the basis that the MPS can only influence incoming demand to a certain degree, but can better manage the way in which it is handled. The business process therefore seeks to order/manage demand by:

• deflecting non-police demand at the first point of contact;
• offering an alternative service provision (by telephone or through electronic means);
• only deploying resources to those calls that require a police presence and then having the right unit deployed in the right time-scales, with the right information.

6. The service solution recognises that, no matter how the request for service arrives at the MPS, be it voice or data, it must be answered prior to any filtering process being applied to it.

C3i options

7. The C3i project team has developed eight costed options to deliver the C3i service, which are summarised as follows:

Table 1: High level summary of the C3i options

MPS management deliberations

8. A detailed analysis, in terms of costs, operational benefits, business continuity, sensitivity to input parameters and deliverability was conducted and published in C3i project document 'Delivery Options for C3i' (Reference TTP-500066-BUS-0004). This report was presented to the C3i Steering Committee on 12 April 2001. The Committee decided that decided that the 'Do Minimum' option (Option 1) did not meet the operational requirements and that the single call centre options did not provide the necessary resilience and business continuity.

9. The Management Board reviewed the options on 27 April 2001 and expressed a view that if finance was not issue, then in pursuit of the borough based focus and the partnership activities of the Crime and Disorder Act, centralised call handling with borough based despatching (Option 4) would be their preferred delivery configuration.

10. However, recognising the assumptions concerning revenue and capital funding and that the £95 million revenue assumption is in excess of the current cost of the service, the three-centre configuration (Option 8) represented the best centralised and the most cost effective solution for the future C3i requirements.

Comparative analysis

11. In conducting the comparative analysis, the remaining options are considered below and analysed against costs, operational benefits, business continuity, sensitivity to input parameters and deliverability.

Financial analysis

12. The affordability of the C3i options has been assessed on the basis of the following assumptions:

• there is a capital investment pool of £70 million available from 2001/2;
• capital contributions from this pool may occur at any time during the implementation period;
• the capital expenditure in 2000/2001 is already accounted for and does not need to be taken from the £70 million capital investment pool;
• during the first 3 years of C3i (from 2000/1 to 2002/3 inclusive) it is assumed that there is no affordability limit for revenue expenditure;
• it should be noted that none of the costs outlined in the above financial analysis assume any level of contingency. For a large business change and technical implementation project of this nature a contingency of around 20 per cent could be held by the MPS as part of its budgeted reserves, to be drawn-down as proven to be necessary;
• during the remaining 15 years of C3i (from 2003/4 to 2017/18 inclusive) there is an expenditure budget of £95 million per year that may be used for either capital or revenue. Any surplus at the end of a year may be capitalised or used in subsequent years.

13. The estimated total costs (measured from 2000/1 to 2017/18) for the various options are shown in the table below:

Table 2: Total estimated costs of each option

14. The centralised and regional options are all fairly similar in cost terms although the three-centre configuration appears to offer the lowest cost route for delivering the C3i service. However a more significant constraint to the MPS, other than total cost of the options, is their effect on cash flow and the ability of the MPS to finance the critical implementation period. The total cost profile differs for each of the options and is shown in the Appendix 1.

15. Table 3 shows that the total estimated cost of the three centralised options (Options 8,7& 5) is less than the total budget available to the C3i project over the 15-year lifetime and thus they appear affordable at first sight. With the current financial assumptions the Borough-based option (Option 4) is not affordable; there is a budgetary shortfall of £111 million over the term of the project for in terms of this option.

Table 3: Affordability of options

16. This analysis does not take into account cash flow during the lifetime of C3i. Appendix 1 shows that there is a cash shortfall in the implementation period that means that on the basis of its budget assumptions the MPS could not afford to implement any of these options. The following table shows the additional capital that would be required to make it possible to implement the centralised options in the year 2004/5. This capital cash is additional to the £70m assumption and assumes civilianisation.

Table 4: Additional capital requirements

Note: For the centralised options (options 8,7&5), the capital is needed in year 2004/5 whereas the capital injection for option 4 is £44 million in 2004/5, £16 million 2005/6, £14 million in 2006/7 plus periodic capital injections through the term of the project as detailed in MPS project document 'Delivery Options for C3i' (Reference TTP-500066-BUS-0004).

17. The MPS may therefore need to find additional capital sums of the order shown in the table above to implement the centralised and regional service options. Realistically, this shows that the MPS may be able to deliver option 8 if it secured an additional £20m of capital in 2004/5.

18. The borough-based option is not affordable in revenue terms. It requires both additional revenue (£27.7 million) and additional capital (£82.9 million) to make it affordable.

Operational benefits

19. The fundamental rationale for changing the current service is to realise real benefits to the business. While realisation of some of the benefits are dependent on the physical configuration, the majority of the benefits would be realised on the basis of the business change arising from improved processes and availability of information from the new technologies. The detailed analysis of the benefits is given in the MPS project document 'Delivery Options for C3i' (Reference TTP-500066-BUS-0004). The analysis shows that the identified high-level business benefits would be delivered by all the options. The central and regional options provide greater opportunities for developing corporate responses across the MPS. Centralisation of call handling and despatching functions offers greater opportunities for staff development and career progression within the functions. Centralisation potentially offers greater flexibility for staff terms and conditions within that function and makes coping with fluctuations in demand and abstraction for training easier to manage.

20. With borough-based configuration, there will be a wider choice of locations for the current and potential despatching staff. Centralisation of call handling will offer greater opportunities for development and career progression within the function, opportunities for despatchers will remain limited.

Deliverability analysis

21. All the centralised options move the staff out of the current control rooms and into new centres. While operationally these configurations retain borough designated despatching, culturally there is a significant change that will need to be assessed, analysed and managed. For the borough-based configuration, the despatching staff will remain in the current control rooms which will undergo substantial disruption during refurbishment and technology refresh.

22. All options can be delivered given an adequate level of resources. However, various options suffer from different level of transition risk and service disruption.

23. 'Do minimum' (Option 1)
This option represents the current environment:

• the switchboard function will continue from existing facilities;
• borough control rooms will continue to handle non-999 calls passed to them and despatch locally to borough resources;
• NSY will continue to accommodate 999 call handling, pan-MPD despatch, SOR and CCB;
• resilience and business continuity will continue as current.

24. Borough based despatch (Option 4)

• this option centralises all call handling into two new centres that will provide facilities for all call handling (including 999, non-999, switchboard, TIIA);
• despatching will be from existing control rooms;
• Pan-MPD functions, SOR and CCB will be migrated to the new centres;
• each new centre will provide resilience and business continuity for the other. Despatching requires localised fallback;
• There will be no further requirement for Resolve or IR at NSY.

25. This option requires an extensive programme of technology refresh and control room refurbishment (four years to complete) that will necessitate a decant of staff and facilities into temporary accommodation causing disruption to the maintenance of service provision. The operator positions needed for the proposed technology configuration are unlikely to be accommodated in existing borough control rooms. The additional space required may result in the need to re-locate staff. The accommodation requirements to house the affected staff have not been examined, and this additional space has yet to be costed. The level of disruption in borough control rooms during transition will be high. There may also be planning approval issues with some the control rooms.

26. BT Airwave project will need to be implemented into borough control rooms. The transition is likely to be on a 'big bang' basis with fallback via borough buddy system. The on-going costs for this configuration of BT Airwave will be in the region of £3 million per year.

27. This option will require new builds at Clapham and Hendon. While planning permission has been granted at Hendon, the delivery of this option may be delayed due to the uncertainties in the planning approval process for Clapham.

28. Culturally the MPS will find this option easier to deliver as it only centralises call handling and leaves the despatching function in the existing borough configuration. Centralisation of call handling will require related staff to relocate into one or two centres. However, the wider choice of locations for despatchers remains.

29. Regional Despatch (Option 5)

• this option provides borough designated despatching from the two new centres and two additional despatching centres ie: Barnet pods will deal with Barnet demand. The two regional despatching centres are likely to be within existing MPS estate;
• the two new centres will provide facilities for all call handling (including 999, non-999, switchboard, TIIA).;
• Pan-MPD functions, SOR and CCB will be migrated to the new centres;
• each new centre will provide resilience and business continuity for the other;
• there will be no further requirement for Resolve or IR at NSY.

30. This option will require new builds at Clapham and Hendon. While planning permission has been granted at Hendon, the delivery of this option may be delayed due to the uncertainties in the planning approval process for Clapham.

31. The estimated time-scales for the building programme suggest that BT Airwave will initially need to be installed in the current borough configurations and subsequently migrated into the new centres. This adds to the cost as well as making the transition process much more complicated.

32. Additionally a significant risk for this option is that no sites have been identified as potential regional despatching centres. There is likely to be limited choice in the existing estate as these regional centres are too small to occupy buildings on their own. However, Lambeth could potentially be used as a regional centre while Bow Road is unlikely to be suitable.

33. Centralised into two centres (Option 7)

• this option provides borough designated dispatching from two new centralised locations i.e. Barnet pods will deal with Barnet demand. The two new centres are likely to be Clapham and Hendon;
• it centralises all call handling (including 999, non-999, switchboard, TIIA) into two new centres;
• Pan-MPD functions, SOR and CCB will be migrated to the new centres;
• full resilience and business continuity will be built into the two centres;
• there will be no further requirement for Resolve or IR at NSY.

34. As the centralisation increases, there is potentially greater cultural resistance to change that will need to be managed. There is also increased staff recruitment and retention risk as the service moves away from the current borough-based control rooms.

35. This option will require new builds at Clapham and Hendon. Lambeth has not been considered for this option as the identified accommodation is too small for a central location, with the required level of business continuity, in a two centre configuration. While planning permission has been granted at Hendon, the delivery of this option may be delayed due to the uncertainties in the planning approval process for Clapham. As this option is a complete new build there will be no requirement to decant and re-locate staff during the building programme.

36. The estimated time-scales for the building programme suggest that BT Airwave will initially need to be installed in the current borough configurations and subsequently migrated into the new centres. This adds to the cost as well as making the transition process much more complicated.

37. Centralised into three centres (Option 8)

• this option provides borough designated dispatching from three centralised locations i.e. Barnet pods will deal with Barnet demand. The three centralised locations are likely to be Hendon, Lambeth and Bow Road;
• it centralises all call handling (including 999, non-999, switchboard, TIIA) into three centres;
• Pan-MPD functions, SOR and CCB will be migrated to the new centres;
• full resilience and business continuity will be built into the three centres;
• there will be no further requirement for Resolve or IR at NSY.

38. This option requires new builds at Hendon and Bow Road and refurbishment at Lambeth. Planning permission has been granted at Hendon and outline planning permission has been granted for Bow Road. Lambeth is an existing MPS accommodation that is currently earmarked for refurbishment. It will require extensive refurbishment for use for C3i. Subject to finding alternative accommodation and relocating existing occupants from Lambeth, work on both Lambeth and Hendon can start straight away. On current estimated timescales, this is the only option that offers the opportunity to install BT Airwave directly into the new centres; thus allowing MPS to make a substantial cost saving (£15-20m).

39. However due to the restricted site at Bow Road there may be problems with the Planning Authority when detailed plans are submitted. There is also an issue of finding alternative accommodation for the SO groups that currently occupy the Lambeth building. These risks will need to be managed during the transition for this option.

Conclusions

40. The C3i project team considered the relative business benefits and the costs and affordability of the three options under consideration. Option 8 is the least expensive in terms of revenue and additional capital required. The table below provides a comparison of the options.

41. Table 5 (Option summaries) provides a ranking of options in the order of the suitability to deliver the C3i service based on costs, affordability, business benefit and deliverability. Financial analysis shows that all the centralised options are affordable over the 15-year lifetime. The borough-based option is not affordable in revenue terms; it requires an additional £27.7 million in revenue. However, there is a cash shortfall in the implementation period that needs to be met by additional capital injection shown above.

42. If there is no civilianisation, the centralised options are still affordable in revenue terms but the capital required during the implementation phase is substantially greater. This is because the revenue saving gained by civilianising staff are not available. The borough-based despatching option is even less affordable in revenue terms without civilianisation. In fact it requires an additional £162.3 million in revenue and an additional £100.1 million in capital to deliver this configuration.

• 43. Comparative merits of the options are as follows:
• all remaining options deliver all the identified business benefits, provide full business continuity and resilience for the 999 call handling service and for deployment support;
• the borough based despatching does not provide the efficiencies of centralisation for despatching;
• the borough based option is not affordable within the current financial assumptions;
• culturally the MPS will find borough-based option (Option 4) easier to deliver as it only centralises call handling and leaves the deployment in the existing borough configuration;
• options that rely on Clapham as one of the centres potentially carry a higher accommodation risk due to the uncertainties in the planning approval process for Clapham;
• for the regional configuration, there is the additional risk that no sites have been identified as potential regional despatching centres;
• the borough-based despatching option requires an extensive programme of technology refresh and control room refurbishment. This will necessitate a decant of staff and facilities into temporary accommodation causing disruption to the maintenance of service provision;
• the three-centre option is the least expensive of the centralised options both in terms total costs and the additional capital required in order to make implementation possible (affordable);
• reusing existing accommodation at Lambeth requires decanting its current occupants;
• the two centre and three centre options offer the largest savings through centralisation. However, the two-centre option requires higher additional capital (£33.6m);
• the estimated building and refurbishment timescales for the three-centre option potentially allows MPS to migrate PSRCS directly into the new sites. All other options require implementation of PSRCS into boroughs and a subsequent migration into the new centres;
• the three centre option releases the Clapham site.

44. If the issue of funding is left to one side, then given operational considerations, Option 4 would be the solution recommended for adoption. However, given the current financial assumptions, the solution that is recommended for adoption is option 8 as it comes within the already agreed funding envelope.

Decisions required and next steps

45. The Management Board invites the MPA to:

• adopt a configuration for C3i;
• task the C3i project team to develop a detailed design of the solution including buildings, technology, service delivery and procurement;
• task the C3i project team to develop detailed plans and timescales for the delivery of the solution;
• allow C3i project to engage additional external resource to support the above activities and plan for the implementation of the solution;
• allow C3i project to undertake a detailed risk analysis and identify an appropriate level of contingency required for the preferred option.

C. Financial implications

• Secure the capital investment pool of £70 million available from 2001/2.
• Confirm that there is an expenditure budget of £95 million per year that may be used for either capital or revenue. Any surplus at the end of a year may be capitalised or used in subsequent years.
• Secure an additional £20m of capital in 2004/5 to deliver the three-centre configuration option (Option 8).
• Secure an additional revenue of £27.7 million and additional capital of £82.9 million if borough based option (Option 4) is adopted.
• Recognise that if the C3i project is terminated, the default option is the 'Do Minimum' option. This will commit MPS to spending an additional £231 million over the term of the contract.
• Recognise that if there is no civilianisation the total cost of three-centre configuration (Option 8) is increased from £1,705 million to £1,815 million and total cost of borough-based configuration is increased from £1,870 million to £2,025 million.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Commander Duncan Croll, C3i Project Director, MPS.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback