Efficiency and effectiveness review programme

Report: 10
Date: 27 September 2002
By: Treasurer

Summary

This report updates progress made in the efficiency and effectiveness reviews. The final I.T. report Management Summary from Accenture is attached for members information.

A. Recommendations

That members note the progress on the Efficiency and Effectiveness reviews including the changed scope of some of the reviews.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The Efficiency and Effectiveness Project Board has met on three occasions since the last meeting of this Committee, on 18 July, 28 August and 19 September, all with Accenture in attendance. Accenture produced their final report on I.T, draft final on shift patterns, scoping report on HR and interim presentation on civilianisation.

2. The Board decided to defer the draft final report on shift patterns pending further discussions with Borough Commanders and the remaining final I.T. report Management Summary is attached at Appendix 1 (the MPS’ response will be available for the next meeting of the Committee). A copy of the full report has been placed in the Members Room.

Progress

3. Progress on these and other tranche 1 and 2 reviews is presented in the attached as Appendix 2. Generally the Board are content with the progress made to date by Accenture and the focus of the work is now turning to that of successful implementation of recommendations within the Service and the realisation of benefits.

HR review 

4. The Board received the scoping review on HR at its July meeting. It was agreed, subject to HR Committee approval, which was received at its meeting on 25 July, that the Accenture review would focus on:

• Occupational health
• HR administration devolved to OCUs

A draft final report is planned for the October meeting of the Board.

Tranche 3

5. The Board decided that it would be appropriate to undertake a third tranche of reviews, but to review possible areas at its September meeting. It was decided that a small part of the 2003/04 funding would be set aside for implementation, but that the majority of the resource would be for the review work.

Overtime

6. The Project Board are due to consider a report on the possible reduction in the level of overtime savings that could possibly be made now that it was possible to provide an update on the recommendations made by Accenture which now fell within the PNB proposals. Any significant reduction in the savings figure will be reported to Committee.

Medium term financial forecast.

7. Substantial work has been undertaken to measure the financial value of the savings resulting from the implementation of the Accenture reviews and the budget reduction in 2002/03 and in 2003/04 and further years. It has not been possible to bring these figures to this committee, but the issue is on the agenda of the 19 September meeting and any later information will be reported to the Committee orally.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The successful implementation of many of Accenture’s recommendations, particularly in HR, require the best principles in this field to be adopted. In particular the review of shifts, still to be considered by members, undertook a comparison of shortlisted shift proposals against officer welfare criteria. This ensured that a model which was least disruptive to officers was identified.

D. Financial implications

Budget provision of £1 million has been made in the 2002-03 budget to fund tranche 2 of the efficiency and effectiveness programme. A similar sum is to be provided in the following year to finance tranche 3 of the review.

E. Background papers

• None

F. Contact details

Report author: Ken Hunt, Deputy Treasurer.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Efficiency and effectiveness review programme tranche 2: IT

Summary report August 2002

Background

In 2001/02 the MPS spent £102m on IT, excluding communications. In 2002\03 this is set to rise by 14% to £116m. Around 34% of this is allocated to investment projects, with the remaining 66% falling to running costs. 

It is widely agreed that IT and information management can make a major contribution the operational efficiency and effectiveness of Police Services.

As the recent White Paper, Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, highlighted, modern police forces need:

• IT that helps officers at the frontline and is operational in its focus
• to achieve their strategic vision - with a joined up future replacing historic 'silo' systems 
• to be in a position to exploit future IT developments

The MPS, like many police forces, faces a number of problems with its IT, which are largely historical in their cause. For example, officers lose valuable time from patrol because they have to retype the same information into different systems, management and performance information often has to be collated by hand, and officers often have to move from one computer to another to complete their work. In addition, the large number of separate 'silo' systems creates barriers to managing and sharing one of the MPS' central strategic assets, namely information.

Key challenges

To address these challenges, the MPS has taken a number of important steps. For example, undertaking significant investment in its infrastructure, setting up new governance structures that increase the control of senior officers on IT investment decisions, and adopting, in 2000, a new Information Strategy which set out a vision for information management and the supporting IT. In addition, the recent MPS 'Benefits Strategy' identifies key strategic operational benefits that investment in IT must support, including the reduction of crime, improved clear up rates and freed up officer time. This will help manage future investments to deliver more value and ensure projects deliver the business impact sought. The MPS is also benchmarking itself with a number of public sector organisations, as well as working with its third Party Suppliers to identify improvement opportunities. This will help identify potential sources of best practice and better value for money.

Building on these important improvements, MPS has the opportunity to deliver the next steps in transforming its IT delivery. We have identified the following opportunities:

• increasing realisation of benefits from increased investment in IT projects - to make the most of the increased spend (up 63% from spending in 01\02 to a budget of £39m in 02\03). Our recommendations focus on helping ensure the operational benefits are achieved and the Information Strategy is implemented rapidly. A priority area for attention may include the 11 (42% projects for which we have relevant information) that have been running for over 18 months, plus the two (6%) that have been running for over four years, as well as high value projects currently running 
• strengthening control of IT running costs - these have increased by 11% from 01\02, to a budget of £77m in 02\03, including an overall increase of £2m in support charges for desktop computers provided to individual MPS OCUs (Operational Command Units) and £800k increase in OCU spending on consumables.

Recommended actions

This report provides a summary of the full Accenture report, which examines the key challenges faced by the MPS and puts forward specific recommendations. The recommendations reflect the two areas that the Efficiency and Effectiveness Project Board asked the Accenture review to focus on:

• Progress in implementing the Information Strategy and action to support the realisation of benefits from the investment programme; 
• Scope for reducing OCU-driven IT costs, which is largely the cost of supporting desktop computers.

IT investment programme

The MPS is changing the way it approaches and manages IT investment with a view to better focussing on, and so better realising, desired operational benefits. To that end, the MPS is now asking "what benefits are we seeking to obtain from this investment?" and has set up improved decision-making structures to support this approach. For example, IMSG (chaired by the Deputy Commissioner) and the supporting benefits realisation committee, ABRAG (Audit and Benefits Realisation Group). In addition, the MPS has adopted a 'Benefits Strategy' and the Benefits Management Process, which together set out the benefits, sought from IT investment and the approach for managing their realisation.

The 'Benefits Strategy', adopted in December 2001, sets out eight business benefits, defined as outcomes, that the MPS is seeking to support through IT investment. These benefits are:

• Freed-up officer time 
• Freed up civilian time 
• Improved clear up rates 
• Reduced crime 
• System maintenance charges 
• Improved staff morale
• Improved public perception 
• Other 

Discussions with MPS during the course of this review identified a number of opportunities for strengthening this approach further, including:

• further definition of intended benefits - to ensure the stated benefits fully reflect those sought by the MPS and to distinguish outcomes from outputs. For example, the Department of Information (DoI) Benefits Review shows that 14 projects are designed to deliver legislative or other compliance (for example National Crime Reporting Standards). Many interviewees understandably placed a high premium on legislative compliance, but this does not itself feature as one of the desired benefits although there is a strong case for so doing. We therefore recommend the MPS take the work to define benefits through a further iteration of the Benefits Strategy, to be signed of by the senior business user (probably the Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as IMSG chair). The benefits sought by the MPS include improved clear up rates, reduced crime and improved public perception. These are, as the 'Benefits Strategy' rightly suggests, outcomes. However, freed-up officer and civilian time are outputs that IT and business change could, if implemented effectively, deliver. In turn, if that time is then deployed effectively, it could contribute to the achievement of the overall outcome. We therefore also recommend as part of this that the MPS distinguishes outcomes from outputs given the nee d to take a view on which outputs can best contribute to the delivery of outcomes, and outputs tend to be easier to measure . Indeed, the difficulty of measuring the impact of outputs on outcomes may partly explain why only 28% of current projects cited reduced crime as one of their intended benefits 
• prioritisation of agreed benefits by MPS business - once the benefits have been clarified and agreed the business can then rank them in order of priority. This will assist not only in the development of business case but also decisions on the relative merit of projects on (or bidding to get onto) the work programme. This process would be most effective if it combines a 'top-down' view from IMSG with a 'bottom-up' process that seeks the views of officers on the ground. One interviewee suggested this be done by identify the priorities as seen from different levels within the MPS. Given the volatile nature of operational priorities, it may be safer to give greater weight to benefits that are focused on improved outputs (particularly officer time freed up for operational policing) than on improved outcomes such as reduced crime.
• adopting a standard approach to business cases - in survey returns from 48 projects DoI project managers indicated that 14 (41%) out of 34 projects ('emerging' projects that are by definition not yet fully defined were excluded) have no business case. DoI senior management reviewed this and have adjusted this to 9 (26%) [DN: to be altered once confirmed with Mike Aston]. Current MPS policy is that legislative requirements do not require a business case. And a number of other projects were authorised to proceed without by IMSG on operational or security grounds. Given the value of effective business cases in driving out, and maximising, the value of any change we recommend that all projects are required to have a business case. In addition, we recommend that the comparison and prioritisation of projects be improved by the adoption of a standard business case model, and a standard approach to their development, quality review and authorisation. 

Given the contribution of IT and information management to police operational efficiency and effectiveness, it is vital the MPS ensure its existing IT work programme is positioned to support the business in realising the benefits effectively and rapidly. The MPS has sought to do this in a number of ways, for example:

• adopting the Information Strategy, for delivery by 2006
• investing in Infrastructure, particularly through the Aware Programme
• engaging the MPS 'business' user in investment programme, through the IMSG and accountability arrangements that put the 'business in charge' where appropriate
• developing a 'roadmap' showing delivery of projects in 02/03

It is in this context that we have identified five main improvement opportunities:

• delivery of a clear migration plan showing how delivery of the Information Strategy will be complete by 2006 - this differs from the current MPS 'Roadmap' in four key ways. Firstly, it continues beyond April 2003 through to 2006. Secondly it clearly distinguishes strategic from tactical\legacy investment showing the changing balance towards the former over time. Thirdly, it has key milestones that focus on delivery of benefits (such as reduced rekeying resulting in freed-up officer time) rather than simply system releases. Finally, it will provide a complete picture of the IT work programme. 
• adopt default timescale target for delivery of benefits 12 -18 months from start of project - In developing this migration strategy, MPS should adopt a principle that the timescale from the approval of a project to the start of benefit realisation should be no more than 12-18 months (preferably less). In the absence of such a principle, delivery timescales stretch and the pressure for interim tactical changes increases, not least because the business isn't seeing the benefits of IT investment. Even for tactical projects (the rationale for which is in part the potential for speedy delivery), two (6% of projects for which we have timetable information) have been running for more than four years. 11 (73% of tactical projects for which we have timetable information) have been extended. One interviewee saw the strategy as "five years away" rather than an approach that delivers business benefits incrementally over time. This perception, coupled with long lead times and delays, risks creating a vicious circle for the IT work programme, creating more pressure for tactical changes, which in turn risks squeezing out strategic investment and slowing down the delivery of benefits, such as productivity improvements. We acknowledge that the ability to deliver on this may be affected by the sourcing strategy and procurement framework
• increase awareness and understanding of the Strategy across MPS - most interviewees expressed little awareness of the Strategy, its existence, aims or implementation. MPS should look to build on what it has done, through communication channels (such as the DoI's Business Development Officers), to sell the strategy and increase business ownership by increasing understanding of the Strategy beyond IMSG membership, focusing in the first instance on ACPO ranks\OCU commanders and project sponsors. It should articulate (including for IMSG) the potential implications for investment decisions (strategic change over tactical), and clearly align the Information Strategy with the business vision. It can also communicate other key messages, such as the importance of officers inputting data in an accurate timely manner, for example on CRIS, the crime reporting system (problems with data quality have been a key issue for the DIANE project)
• business work with DoI to ensure the operating vision exists to drive investment - For example, C3i is felt to provide strong business vision for incident management, National Intelligence Model for intelligence, and elements of the OPM for TP. However, not all areas are as clear. The vision for Criminal Justice has not yet been translated into a Met-wide vision and operating strategy from the level of an overall government vision. This clearly needs to be done ahead of major IT investment and change. Otherwise this risks the IT driving the business rather than the IT converging to meet the business needs and support the business in realising the intended benefits. Real results are achieved when business and IT change are integrated and pulling in the same direction at the same pace
• business balance their demands for tactical, reactive investment with the need to invest in strategic change that will realise desired business benefits by moving away from legacy silo systems. If the £20m investment in the enabling infrastructure is set to one side, strategic projects account for only 10% of the allocated spend. Therefore, in terms of system changes, the balance of the work programme is heavily biased towards tactical changes. This reflects in part the nature of policing but also highlights a tendency in MPS to reactive business decision-making. The business therefore needs to consider the opportunity cost of tactical investment and the value of the benefits foregone as well as those potentially delivered

In line with wider MPS improvements to corporate project management arrangements, MPS has developed improved arrangements for improving the management of IT projects including:

• increasing business leadership and accountability - with business and project 'sponsors' who are now accountable for project management, DoI providing experienced IT project managers
• implementing more effective governance and controls - with project boards, clear checkpoints that projects have to pass. The arrangements set out in 'Management of the MPS Information Management development Programme' procedures and the new METRUP process are key to this
• developing improved reporting arrangements - for example starting to develop earned value reporting

We have identified a number of improvement opportunities to build on this:

• fully implementing governance and METRUP arrangements - Not all constituted IT Project Boards are meeting monthly as required. We recommend reporting to the IMSG on boards that are not meeting as required and caution about allowing some Boards not to meet but instead to work by reports. While we understand the need to avoid meetings for meetings sake, until business and project sponsors have a stronger grasp of their accountabilities and the issues projects face in delivery and until improved reporting (such as earned value) is implemented meetings serve a valuable function
• supporting effective functioning of IMSG -The IMSG is a powerful body. It is, for example, the "star chamber" for deciding priorities and allocating resources. A number of simple steps could be taken to improve its functioning still further. For example, a 'deputy of deputy' pattern is beginning to emerge. Yet continuity of membership and authority to take decisions are clearly vital to effective IMSG decision-making. We therefore recommend IMSG adopt a 'named deputy' policy (ie if a member cannot attend there is a single nominated stand-in) and agree that deputies attend with delegated authority. In addition it is worth reviewing the agenda items. Some recent meetings have seen large number of items allocated short-periods of time. Although these timings are not always kept to in the meetings it highlights a need for the agenda to focus on critical items, such as progress, risks and priorities. In addition, we support the intention that business sponsors should report on their workstreams to the IMSG and would encourage this is implemented at the earliest opportunity 
• increasing business and project 'sponsors' understanding of their new accountabilities and increasing their capability to discharge them - planned communication sessions have been hampered by officers' lack of availability, and a number of sponsors do not feel equipped to readily assume new responsibilities. Some do not see the 'sponsor' role as accountable for delivery and benefits realisation (partly because they do not feel in control of the resources necessary to deliver). In addition, three 'workstreams' have joint business sponsors, potentially risking confusion as to who is accountable. Without effective management at project and executive level even projects with the most robust business cases are at increased risk. MPS therefore needs to ensure that the new management arrangements are effectively implemented and sustained. Key to this is the need to equip, enable and incentivise business and project sponsors, as well as DoI project managers to discharge their accountabilities effectively.
• consider introducing an element of independent scrutiny for high value projects - we believe the MPS should consider building on the OGC Gateway model of independent scrutiny

The MPS recognises that it needs to exploit IT changes at the front-line in order to realise the intended benefits. In order to achieve this, individual OCUs, officers and members of staff need to be equipped, enabled and incentivised to implement the intended changes. In addition, effective management and monitoring arrangements need to be in place. This is a critical issue for the business and is not in the gift of DoI to deliver.

The MPS faces a number of challenges effecting business change across the organisation, including such projects as DIANE (intelligence system) and the Metropolitan Police Model (OPM). For example:

• developing approach to design and implementation of business change - there is currently no effective Met-wide approach for implementing business change, for example, how to design, plan and communicate change, as well as how to manage implementation effectively. Another example is that the MPS does not assess the readiness of the business to exploit IT change before giving the green light to implementation. In addition, business change seems to focus almost exclusively on immediate user groups rather than wider groups who need to understand the implications for them (such as Superintendent Ops in the DIANE project). The lack of a corporate framework has tended to lead to business change efforts at best 'reinventing the wheel' each time they take place and at worst being overlooked. The MPS can enhance its business change efforts across the organisation and specifically in the area of IT benefits realisation. These enhancements should include the adoption of a standardised framework for business change, which identifies good practice across the MPS (such as C3i type model of local change champions)
• strengthening management accountability for business change - at both corporate and OCU level. For example, most project managers are drawn from DoI and it is not always clear who is responsible for designing business change. One interviewee felt they were picking it up 'by default' because no one else was. Another felt that their job was to deliver the system change and whether users adopted it (and therefore realised the benefits) was irrelevant to their successful delivery of the project. This sort of confusion has meant business change efforts become reactive and focus on 'fire-fighting'. There is also a lack of clear accountability and support for benefits realisation at OCU level, for example, the review could not find an instance of a clear statement of what OCU commanders' needed to do to support benefits realisation or what they were accountable for
• ensuring measurement of benefits - for example, there are no detailed plans to measure the benefits realised from the release of DIANE after the July release to the Safer Streets sites. The lack of baselining and measurement makes success of realization difficult to assess and accountability difficult to enforce

We therefore recommend that the MPS adopt a framework for effective business change that provides a flexible, standard approach to benefits realisation and ensures good practice across MPS projects (e.g. local change champions). The framework should cover the key elements of business change, including process & organisation design, training, communication and evaluation. The MPS could also strengthen and clarify accountabilities for delivering benefits at OCU level by agreeing accountability for delivering benefits with OCU commanders, as well as ensuring implementation preparation includes planning with the OCU commanders for benefits realization. 

OCU-driven costs

Given the scope of this review, the two areas of interest in OCU-Driven costs are:

• the £2m increase in support charges for desktop computers provided to individual MPS OCUs (Operational Command Units). This is a charge for supporting the software on each computer, and is largely volume driven. So, the more computers the MPS has, the more it pays (with standard networked desktops incurring a lower charge than standalones)
• the £800k increase in local spending on consumables, which includes local procurement of IT equipment (such as scanners) as well as charges to third party suppliers that would fall out of the contract (for example, forgetting a password out-of-hours, or moving a workstation from one room to another) and the cost of basic supplies

The MPS is taking a number of steps to improve the efficient and effective use of desktops, including:

• Devolution of software support charges - until recently OCUs had no incentive to manage or allocate computers efficiently as DoI met costs centrally. The monthly support charge has now been devolved to OCUs
• Aware Programme - that reduces the need for officers and staff to have two desktops and allows for staff to 'log-on' and work from multiple locations
• CRIS R10 - which will, amongst other improvements, help increase access to CRIS which is the major 'shortage' currently experienced by OCUs
• Utilisation data being provided for CRIS terminals for the first time to help increase efficient use of desktops
• Asset management - with the new Inventory on Line representing a significant step forward in the locking down of the MPS desktop and printer asset base

These initiatives all improve the ability of the MPS to manage and use its IT more efficiently and effectively at OCU level. There remain a number of additional issues:

• Business process - and how this affects demand for IT, for example demand from core teams seems higher at the start and end of shifts, reflecting established work patterns in some areas 
• Skills and capability - of officers and staff which will affect their ability to use the systems they need in their work. This will be a combination of basic skills (eg keyboard) and knowledge of the systems they use (eg ability to navigate CRIS, the crime reporting system or knowledge that they can now cut and paste between the new child protection form and CRIMINT, the crime intelligence system) 
• Allocation of resources -OCUs have no basis or guidance on which to assess their needs. We believe this is an additional element that could help realise the benefits of the changes set out above and provide a flexible basis for resource planning in the future. 

This report focuses on the latter and set out proposals for a systematic approach to determine the appropriate provision across the MPS, the key features of which are: 

• developing a more needs based method for allocating desktops and printers to OCUs, the ad-hoc historic allocation has resulted in variations of provision that cannot wholly be explained by need. For example, Sutton has 65% over the provision of Ealing (when adjusted for officer and staff numbers). This will involve a sequential process of calculating a "standard entitlement" of standard desktops, which is based on the number of officers/civilians requiring access to office-based PCs, by applying suitable ratios to different groups of staff. The method would allow for submitting a business case, where additional desktops are required for specific business reasons (e.g. security, training, or to provide features not available on the standard desktop) 
• increasing transparency, understanding and control of devolved budgets, supplier charges, and assets, so that OCU finance managers are clear as to what supplier charges fall into what budget, and the spend is clearly identified (one of the devolved budget cost codes includes three different categories of spend). In addition, there is a need to ensure the asset register (used to determine charges paid to third party suppliers) is accurate. For example, in one OCU 20 desktops that had been disposed of months earlier were still being paid for. The increased provision of management information about the utilisation or availability of desktop will assist OCUs in managing their IT more effectively. 

Summary

In summary, our key recommendations include the MPS:

• fully defining and prioritising the benefits it is seeking from IT investment
• aligning the IT work programme to the delivery of significant operational benefits, using the Information Strategy as a means to realising these benefits. This will require a migration plan stretching through to 2006, with clear interim milestones for benefit delivery 
• convening IMSG to 'starchamber' current investment projects to ensure the work programme is robust, prioritised and geared to delivering the business benefits through strategic change 
• strengthening project management and business change skills and accountabilities to improve the delivery capability
• implementing an effective MPS-wide approach to implementation in order to support realisation of benefits at OCU level
• improving efficiency of desktop and printer provision by adopting the recommended allocation method that is flexible to changing needs, estates and IT, as well as improving controls, communications and budget transparency 

The full report sets out the key actions, which, if successfully implemented, could build on MPS success to date and further strengthen its position the MPS to realise the benefits of IT investment, increase the effective allocation of IT at OCU level and potentially deliver up to £2.4m in running cost savings. Other opportunities that we have been unable to test in more detail may yield up to another £1.5m.

Appendix 2: Progress of efficiency and effectiveness reviews

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback