Agenda item

Minutes:

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Budget and Transformation Panel of 8th May.

 

            Review of Information Services Belfast

 

            The Committee was informed that the Budget and Transformation Panel had considered a report in relation to a review of Information Services Belfast and agreed that it be submitted to the Committee for approval.  A copy of the report in this regard is set out hereunder:

 

“Relevant Background Information

 

      In the past external IT work has generated significant income for the Council and subsidised internal IT costs by up to 25%. This contribution has dropped to 17% in 2007/2008 and to 14% in 2008/2009.

 

      At Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on 9 January 2009 the Director of Corporate Services highlighted a significant downturn in income for ISB and the projected loss of income (in the region of £890,000) for the financial year 2009/2010.

 

      Committee supported the recommendation that a review be undertaken to determine how the service could be ‘right-sized’ by reducing expenditure whilst sustaining the quality of IT service.

 

      As part of the Council’s efficiency programme ISB has reduced costs and created savings wherever possible resulting in a lean operating budget.  This has made the realisation of further cost savings in areas other than staffing less achievable. As staff costs in ISB account for 60% of overall costs it was considered reasonable to commission BIS to examine ISB’s structure and the potential for a reduction in the number of posts to realise savings.

 

Key Issues

 

      ISB’s current structure has four portfolios: Customer Services, Internal Solutions, External Solutions and Infrastructure, all supported by a Commercial Support section.  Each portfolio has an establishment of a portfolio manager post. The service has been functioning with two portfolio managers supported by the Deputy General Manager and the Head of Service. The review presents an opportunity to review ISB’s management requirement with a view to flattening the management structure and reorganising the portfolios.

 

      In recent years ISB has changed the way resource is managed and in particular how work is allocated to projects within the service. Rather than having staff dedicated to specific applications, a number of staff are allocated from a resource pool with generic skills - keeping the balance right between supporting specialisms and increasing the ability to flex capacity according to demand. This presents an opportunity to review the size of the generic pool without impacting negatively on capacity.

 

      The creation of CTU and the changing needs of the service have changed the role of Commercial Support in ISB. It has moved away from the more traditional role of business support to one of creating and supporting a programme office and supporting the staff development and performance management needs of the service.

 

      In 2009 Reprographics section merged with ISB. It was agreed that the merge would deal initially with the physical move and that it would be appropriate to review the Reprographics function as part of this review.

 

      With the above factors in mind, the scope of the work undertaken by BIS has covered the structure of ISB and Reprographics and the changing role of business support staff.

 

Recommendations

 

      BIS has developed the recommendations outlined below to address the key issues identified.

 

·         Delete the post of Deputy General Manager;

 

·         Delete one post of Portfolio Manager, leaving an establishment of three Portfolio Managers;

 

·         Reconfigure the four Portfolios into three.

 

·         Delete two posts of Assistant Manager;

 

·         The two vacant posts of Principal Consultant should be filled to enable effective delivery of the IS/IT service at this level;

 

·         Delete four posts of Senior Consultant reducing the establishment to twenty nine;

 

·         Delete one post of Consultant and two posts of Senior Analyst;

 

·         Delete one post of Senior Technician;

 

·         Delete one post of Technician;

 

·         Delete post of Reprographics Manager;

 

·         Delete post of Commercial Support Manager;

 

·         Re-title post of Commercial Support Assistant to Programme and Business Support Assistant;

 

·         Delete post of Management Support Assistant

 

Resource Implications

 

      Financial

 

      The implementation of the above recommendations will result in the following costs;

 

Posts

Actuarial and Redundancy Costs (£)

Current Salary and Superannuation Costs (p.a.) (£)

 

Clawback Period

IT Staff

896,970

506,116

 

Commercial Support Staff

169,974

82,914

 

Total

1,066,917

589,030

22 months

 

      If these recommendations are accepted, savings of £589,030 per annum after 22 months will be realised.

 

      Benchmarking has identified that the clawback period is well below that used by other public sector organisations where a payback period of 3.25 years has been defined as acceptable.

 

      Human Resources

 

      Detailed consultation will now take place with all relevant stakeholders including HR, Trade Unions and staff to develop an implementation plan which is fully in accordance with all relevant HR policies and procedures.

 

      It is acknowledged that all affected post holders must sign and agree amended job descriptions. In addition, a recruitment exercise will need to be undertaken for new posts, as appropriate.

 

Recommendations

 

      The Committee is asked to agree the BIS recommendations for the ISB review as a management side position.

 

      Members are asked that, if no written objections are received, we can proceed directly to implementation stage without further referral back to committee.

 

Key to Abbreviations

 

ISB – Information Services Belfast

BIS – Business Improvement Section

RPA – Review of Public Administration

CTU – Central Transaction Unit”

 

            The Committee adopted the recommendations.

 

Supporting documents: