Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

The Committee received a report which set out progress on Project Minerva since it was last presented to the Committee in December 2014.

The Committee agreed that Councillor Wright could speak and ask questions on this item.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance, Corporate Resources and Policy Development introduced the item and explained that there were currently financial pressures facing the Council.  As a result significant savings had to be achieved.  As a result it was important to be more efficient and build partnerships.  This theme had been a key aspect of Project Minerva.  A lot of hard work had taken place on this Project resulting in an organisation which was better able to deliver the future financial savings required.

The following questions were made by Members and responded to accordingly:

·                     Could further explanation be provided on the anticipated savings expected from Project Minerva.

The original savings identified under the internal option from Project Minerva totalled £2 million.  This figure excluded the savings expected from the ICT procurement.

·                     In relation to the continued progress for a shared service partner for Human Resources and Development, it was important to recognise that although the same software might be utilised between the relevant Councils, they were normally structured differently.  How confident were the Council that the systems would integrate?

This issue was recognised and was currently being investigated.  It was important to note however that the Business Case for this proposal was primarily based of making efficiencies through shared management and staff.

·                     Were there any other Local Authorities sharing services for Human Resources?

There were shared services currently between the London Boroughs of Havering and Newham.  The London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton had a shared Director of HR and it was understood that proposals for shared services were being discussed between the London Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth.  It was important to recognise that different Local Authorities had different needs.

·                     What did the term ‘SAP’ stand for?

It was understood that this was the name of the product rather than an acronym. The term ‘ERP’ referred to Enterprise Resource Planning.

·                     It was referred to in the report that the training and development specification for managers and HR staff was over ambitious.  Was this lesson learnt before Project Minerva or before it had commenced?

This lesson had been learnt during the implementation of Project Minerva.

·                     It was referred to in the report that performance pressures in Housing Benefits concerning processing times and that the situation was being monitored.  Who was doing this monitoring?

Extra work had been created relating to Housing Benefits as a result of increased automation with the Department for Work and Pensions.  The amount of resource required had been estimated and work was already under way on clearing the backlog which had accumulated.  Consideration would be given as to whether this amount of resource would be sustainable in the longer term.

·                     Would lessons learnt during Project Minerva be considered and acted upon?

Lessons were learnt and were always acted upon.  The Divisional Director Commercial, Contracts and Procurement was a member of the Minerva Programme Board and any improvements required to the procurement process would be picked up.

RESOLVED: That

(1)          the results achieved from Project Minerva be noted;

(2)               it be noted that the total programme spend was £70,000 under the original budget.