Transcript

Casting. Marvellous. Thank you very much indeed. So welcome to this meeting of the Resources and Performance Committee. There's no fire drill expected today. In the event of a fire alarm panic, or rather follow the signs that tell you where to get out of the building. You can use mobile phones, but make sure they're on silent. Ditto social media unless it irritates the chairman. There's a webcast going on, which allows for participation remotely. Please use the, if there are officers online, and the problem with the system is you can't really see who's online, but never mind. Please use the raise hand function so that we can see who wants to speak. And there are microphones. If you don't know how to use them by now, you never will. Thank you. Apologies for absence. Yes, we have. Apologies have been received from Councillor Tim Hall, Councillor Andy Lynch, and Councillor Ryzat Khan. Thank you very much indeed. The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 6th of December have been circulated. Are there any comments relating to the factual accuracy? No. No, thank you very much. No, thank you very much. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of disposable, disclosable, pecuniary interests, significant personal interests, any gifts or hospitality accepted? I see no hands coming up. Thank you very much. We have no questions and petitions. So we move to item five, which is the cabinet responses to our recommendations. I have no comments because they agreed with our recommendations, which is always a good start. Is there any comments any colleague wants to make? No. Thank you very much indeed. We then move to item six, the customer transformation program update. And we welcome the deputy leader, Denise Turner Stewart, who's the cabinet member for customer and communities. Andy Brown, the executive director of resources and deputy chief executive. Sarah Hardman, program director, customer experience journey. Eleanor Brown, assistant director, customer experience and Adrian Stockbridge, assistant director of transformation. And we have Karen Taylor with us as well. And oh, and Matt Marsden. Thank you very much indeed. Can I invite Denise to introduce the item? Thank you, chairman. So I'm very pleased to present this update on it in July 24, following a report to this committee. We've had the opportunity to engage with you in the interim and share specific detail on program risks, dependencies and benefit improvements to the customer experience through design and implementation of the new operating model, which transforms the way we structure and organize our teams, the way we use technology and digital solutions and option on future drawdown of funding within the agreed investment envelope will be taken. And given the changing context and current levels of uncertainty around local government reform, that process process will now involve an additional step and obviously with with the that that may bring. There has been impressive progress on the program to date. This year's goal has been to lay a strong foundation, ensuring that the work leads to significant lasting benefits to our customers. And just a few examples to date are enabling customers to self serve. And you've all had the opportunity to see the success of Fix My Street, reducing our microsites. We have a number of microsites that have been merged back into our central website so far, reducing call volumes and improving communication with our blue badge customers. The recommendation from the July 24 meeting was that regular updates would be brought to this committee and the report sets out the next stage of the program, which has a broad focus across the systems processes, good quality data and ways of working that will support the customer journey. And critically in this phase, the program is building on customer insight, engaging with the customers to test and understand how the model meets their needs. And the focus is on the priority areas of work that will drive the most impact financially and non financially within the council and across all the work is on track within the current plan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Denise. We'll go straight to the questions. The first one is from me. And I think this was a main concern when we had our pre-meeting, which is, is the level of investment required for the program prudent in the face of potential local government reorganization? And is there an argument for pausing at least part of the program and potentially redeploying the funds required? For instance, what would happen if LGR was announced for Surrey after another chance of funding was approved by cabinet? Although I understand the ministerial statement will happen before this committee rises. Thank you. Thank you. I'll take that one. So the program's currently working on a series of options to present. So as a cabinet went into account before a decision is made. So at the current time, we're going through a process of looking at different options across the plan to be clear about the implications of any changes to the plan. Thank you, Andy. Yeah, so without doubt, it's probably the most pertinent question. And no one's got a crystal ball, unfortunately. So we can't definitively answer it. But without doubt, just as the cabinet members described in terms of steps within the process, the planned investment is going to need to be reviewed in light of any decision. And that probably just doesn't go for simply the customer transformation program, but a large chunk of the transformation programs across the organization as well. However, without doubt, there are good things in this transformation program that we should still be doing, and not least within all the transformation programs where there are delivering efficiencies in the MTFS, then we have to continue to deliver those to ensure that we deliver a balanced budget in the financial year 2025-26. And that's part of the check that we're doing in terms of the activity that's in the program, and it's direct correlation to the efficiencies that are being delivered. Because if we pause that, then we potentially, unintended consequences don't deliver the efficiencies in 2025-26. And there's also links to this program to other savings within other services, so in terms of the front door from adult social care as an example. And we've just got to be mindful from that perspective. But without doubt, LGR and whatever decision may come is going to potentially significantly change the landscape of this program and what the investment is spent on. And across the whole of the transformation programs as well. The other thing I would add as well is that we've then got to be agile and flexible in terms of that transformation program, because it will suddenly go from one state to a completely different state in terms of the parallel thinking of what does LGR now then bring to this customer transformation program, and how can we adapt and change things differently in the decision that's been made and how we move potentially then. What does that look like in the frame of local government within Surrey? That's extremely helpful, thank you very much. Not what I expected, but I'm delighted to hear it. Are you able to give some examples or the team able to give some examples of the things that are going to be progressing at this stage, assuming that LGR goes ahead? So we're currently going through that process of assessment to present what those specifics should be. But as an example, we would be considering if there's an investment proposed within the XB customer-centric in our focus as a local authority. I think you can chalk up that as being such a helpful answer, it's nonplussed, so it's one up to that side of the table. David. Yes, I was thinking back to what happened when we examined various possibilities for unitarization somewhere between 10 and 15 years ago. I can't remember exactly when it was, but one of the problems that we didn't need to get involved in as it happened, but we might well do now, is that if we're driven into unitarization now, which is clearly the government's intention of some sort or other, that can come in different shades, like we could have a single for Surrey, we could have two, we could have three, we could have 10, which we looked at before, I was thinking it was 11 actually, which meant just close down the county council, and then let the boroughs and districts run everything. So, are you considering those potential traps in your reviewing, and if so, how do you deal with that? So, what we're looking at at the moment is a number of scenarios, and they're obviously example scenarios, but in terms of the context of not having the clear direction at this point. Could I add in to the question, before Andy has to go with it, have you considered what happened, because the government seems to be dead set on causing us to have to have a bit of somewhere else, as well as our current footprint, and if so, how on earth do we deal with that at this stage of lack of knowledge? So, I think we are factoring that in just in the way that we're able, as you said, with a lack of knowledge, just to consider what might that mean, and what might that look like. But I think to the point I made in terms of the model that we're developing through this programme, it is naturally designed to be able to flex, and so that would mean, in terms of the functionality, that it could take into account additional function, what are currently different organisations, regardless of the geography. Thank you. Okay, Denise then, Andy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, it's also important to recognise challenges. Thank you. Steve. Thanks, Chair. I'd just like to pick up comments made by Andy, if I might. And you talk about the options being prepared to take into account activities which will deliver efficiencies. I've got a follow-on question later, which you've probably seen on efficiencies that are claimed. And, again, I assume that the paper for the stage gate request for the extra funding will include those additional options. And the question here is, when are those options to be completed, and when is the presentation of those options going to be presented to Cabinet for the next stage gate? So, we talked about basically having options to consider items and provide some, I think, Sarah, you mentioned as well, two different, two stages, two different options. And it seems to be, you mentioned, Andy, that there may be some additional items in that to be included, which might accommodate in-flight work that is providing or presenting efficiencies to this council. But you would still look to continue, if I've interpreted what you said already. So, if we could just basically get some clarity on what those options are going to look like and when they're going to be ready and when they're going to be presented, please. So, I can talk you through, when I sat down with the program team to look at the investment and plan for the next financial year. So, it won't come as a surprise as, you know, what I asked to continue was the activity that directly correlated to MTFS savings and efficiencies around that. So, where we're looking at enhancements to how customers access services that therefore deliver savings centralization services that deliver efficiencies as well. So, I wanted that piece of work to be undertaken. I kind of envisaged a timeline around a couple of months to be able to look at that based on the reality of the situation is that to get some clarity over what is happening from an LGR perspective. Because the other angle was what is potentially areas of investment that we don't necessarily want to undertake. Now, that will ultimately be a decision for Cabinet and that will have to then come back to Cabinet to be presented. But it's in the reality that this is ongoing at the moment. So, we talk about the cultural change that we want to undertake. These are all the right things to do. I think we just need a sense check as an organization that potentially might not be around in two years' time. And it will be for someone else in terms of the organization to determine what the culture is looking like. But that is kind of the sense check that we want to undertake. And that's a piece of activity that the team are undertaking at the moment. But we'll have to come back to Cabinet to then draw that down. But that's not on the forward plan as yet as when it's coming to Cabinet. But it will have to go to Cabinet to draw down that funding. Thank you, Chair. So, I'm literally curious on that. So, there's no date in the forward plan to basically bring the next stage gate release of funds for the customer transformation program. Is that what you're saying? Well, no, so, let's clarify that. LGR changes everything. So, once a decision is known, then the review of the investment and how it's linked through then needs to come back to Cabinet, in my view. Understood, given the uncertainty with LGR and given the fact that we are trying to, or we should be trying to run the organization based on what we know, I would have assumed, either rightly or wrongly, that there would be an item, I mean, funding for this program runs out at a certain point, or it should run out, I think it's probably going to be April or May when the last one was done. So, again, it surprises me that there's nothing in the forward plan to actually have something penciled in to bring that stage gate item to Cabinet for consideration. And that's a little bit worrying, to be honest. Well, Sarah can come in, but we can always release the funding through a budget monitoring report as well. So, as long as the Cabinet members are comfortable with that, we've always got the option of releasing funding and getting recommendations through to Cabinet, through the budget monitoring report that goes regularly. So, again, we're talking about having a stage gate process, which was one of the recommendations out of a task and finish group that we basically worked on last time. And what it seems to be talked about is, if that stage gate process isn't right or ready to come to Cabinet, there's an alternate method that these funds can be released without going through that stage gate process, which doesn't sit very well with me, I must admit. So, again, you would like to explain the alternate method that you just described that you could release those funds? Is that there may be a more significant decision about whether actually the activity that was planned and approved by Cabinet at that point still remains relevant, in which case that would obviously be something that we'd need to come back to Cabinet. And Andy. Well, I suppose I'm trying to clumsily give you the assurance that I view this as, even though the delegate authority is in place, that I do envision this coming back to Cabinet to release and confirm the amount of investment that is required going forward because of the current uncertainty. So, there is an assurance in there, hopefully, that this will come back in terms of releasing the funding of what's required on this transformation program. We can come back to that in recommendations. Hazel. Yes, thank you. Both Sarah and Andy mentioned cultural change. And I just want to, I presume that means training of staff in the CAD Council. And I just wanted clarification as to whether that would, training, would carry on for all staff while it... Yeah, thank you. So, that is a really good example of one of the areas that we're reviewing in terms of the different requirements that this program might have much broader impact. Thank you, Andy. Andy. Thanks. I think, you know, LGR is going to probably dominate the discussions. And we're operating in a period where there is little clarity at this moment in time. So, the challenge I'm putting there in terms of the program is, so, before LGR and the White Paper came along, we had a customer transformation program that was designed to look at the cultural training across the council that is needed to be more customer responsive, the right thing to do. The challenge I'm putting in is that, whether we like it or not, this organization may not be around in two years' time and may have a very different viewpoint in terms of customer reaction and the culture that is needed within the organization. So, that's the kind of challenge that we need to be testing ourselves in terms of, is it the right thing to spend money on at this point in time? And where should our resources be directed going forward as well? Because if we are going down the LGR route, the money that we would have spent on culture and the change journey, well, there's a massive change journey potentially going forward anyway. And there's only a level, an ability of staff to take on a level of change and probably, from my perspective, the challenge would be, is the investment in change more directed to whatever this decision comes along and therefore needs to be refocused on that. And that's not trying to allude to the stage check review in terms of, yes, we've got to go through that, but there's some sense and challenge and we're just trying to be pragmatic and then react to the decisions that come forward because the last thing I want to be doing is investing in something that actually isn't going to benefit either Surrey County Council or the new authorities or whatever that might be going forward and that's the lens that we've got to look in through. Denise. Thank you. And I think it's also important to recognize the journey we've been on already, you know, when we look at the impact of our customer promise, our customer champions, the high five initiative where staff are rewarded and recognized internally and are celebrated. I mean, you know, stars in Surrey, again, huge motivational cultural approaches which have been really important to recognize that we have made significant improvements and actually just to kind of pause and assume that where we are is where we need to be is not necessarily the case. So there's ability upon ourselves to make sure that we're in the best sort of optimized cultural mindset collectively within our staff that we can be to be able to address and face these challenges. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have a separate? You're fine. Okay. Can we move on to question two from John O'Reilly? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Very cheeky. I'm going to ask a separate question to the one that I was on the order paper, but I don't think it will cause any problems. I hope it doesn't. In paragraph 17, and I'll give you the reasons why I'm asking this question, it notes the first bullet point, improved over 150 highways customer inquiry templates trialing the use of AI. Now, I appreciate that the plural of anecdote is not data, but if I say in three occasions the last week I've called our contact center to report mega potholes, and on all three occasions the service was exemplary and the potholes were addressed within maybe a couple of hours of my call. So, you know, hats off to the team there. My question, though, related to that, is what I've just quoted and the reaction and the response I got, are they related? Or is it just I happen to come across three excellent members of our contact center and, frankly, the transformation program was not a relevant factor in that? So, first of all, thank you ever so much. I will pass on your feedback to my team. I know they will be delighted to hear that. Personally, I spend quite a lot of time sitting and listening in the calls and shadowing our information officers. And I can tell you from my experience and also just sitting in the center just over and listening into calls and sort of in the background, I have been incredibly impressed actually by the quality of the response and also the attributes of our staff working on the front line because it is an incredibly hard job to do. So, I would like to think that that experience is something that is replicated across the board. Where it isn't, where we listen into our call recordings and find that's not the case, we do have mechanisms in place to address that performance quickly and improve training and information and knowledge from our staff. I would say as well that with the premise of being able to shift our customer contact into more digital self-serve online as, for example, fix my street that allows us to ensure that we support our residents and customers that no one is left behind. And so, that means that the staff that we do have are then able to give, have more time to be able to support customers who find it harder to self-serve. So, my view is that and personally what I have seen in the contact center in terms of the time that FixMyStreet has freed up and that's in the report is that my staff now have, can move on to the next call faster because they are not dealing with that volume of calls coming in with FixMyStreet with that percentage increase in people self-serving online. And I would say that is one of the key design principles of the dynamic customer operating model which is to shift more those who can self-serve online so that the staff that we do have then can, are available and able to support our residents when they call us. Thank you very much. I mustn't detain the Commission anymore. But one story, after the first call, the operator put it right through, yes sir, yes, John, it'll be done. And then on Facebook, there was a photograph of one of the residents looking at the ringway lorry fixing the potholes. So, again, just absolutely fantastic service and they deserve all the praise that we and you can give them. The question I had down on the paper I think has been already covered in large respect in the first program, in the first question. But, you know, like Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? Taking aside the exigencies of local government reorganizing, what are the challenges, the greatest challenges, still confronting the team in delivering the transformation? So don't go over LGR, we've done that, but are there other areas that you could help us with? Sure, thank you. So I think we have touched on these but I'll address them specifically in reference to the question that you asked. So one of the challenges, I suppose it's important first to say that the kind of the current financial context is obviously challenging and actually that is the context in which this program was set up. So partly the objective of this program is to ensure that we are set up to operate effectively, as my colleague Eleanor just described, in a context of financial challenge and therefore to be able to direct our resource most effectively. And so what that means is enabling people to, for example, self-serve where they can so that we can free up and redeploy the resource that we have in the best way. So I guess that context is a challenge, but it's kind of a known one and kind of one that gave rise to the program. So that aside, data, which I mentioned earlier, is quite a significant challenge. So we have gaps in the baseline data that we have. So we know what we want to measure and we know the improvement system way. So we're working really closely with colleagues in the data program to address that. And it remains a challenge, but therefore it remains a significant focus for the program. The other couple of things, I guess, that are worth referencing in that regard are around capacity. And again, that's a challenge which is exacerbated in the financial context in the sense that we are needing as an organization to be very prudent around our recruitment and thinking about our prioritization clearly. Specialist service areas to engage in change on top of business as usual delivery. And so that creates pressure. We need to work creatively. The premise of this program is that we work with multidisciplinary teams. So we really recognize that to shape and steer the program. So that clearly creates a dependency on them being able to commit the time to that. So again, we are working really carefully to understand how can we do that closely with the other transformation programs so that we can have an aligned approach. And then I guess the other one, which is I won't dwell on because I think we probably have covered it quite extensively, but is around that alignment with kind of broader change. So the transformation, obviously the upcoming change with the local government are faced with that. And so one of the mitigations is what we've talked about at length around not just seeking to plow ahead with a plan that clearly will need revision in the current context, but having different approaches where that's appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Can we move on to question three from Edward? Thank you, Chairman. Actually, John, I don't phone the contacts in. I send them an email, and they're very good on getting back to me. So, you know, I think it's a difficult job, and I think it's very good. The other point, Chairman, is LGR, I mean, it is going to happen. So people are saying if it happens, it is going to happen. It's more of a question of when, isn't it, rather than my understanding, unless I've missed something in transition. But anyway, by the way, my point is gobbledygook. Right, just looking at this first paper. Durable benefits. Locality harbour core capacity. Dynamic customer operating model. Overleveraging. Overleveraging. Overleveraging. Again, let me say it. Overledgering. Anyway, you know what I mean. I'm questioning that. Overleveraging into test areas. And did I hear cultural phobia? We are here to serve residents, and I'm not sure how many residents are actually going to fully understand what the hell we're talking about. You know, I mean, I'm not, I don't actually belong to the plain English society, but some of my working life, some of the people I've worked with, and I'm including reporting to the now king when he was in an earlier life. If I went into him and talked to him about a locality hub core capacity when we were talking about developing some of the duchy estates, I mean, we would have been thrown out. I mean, he would not have stood for it. Why? Why can't we, between us, speak in English, write in English, so everybody can understand us, not a select group who understand what dynamic customer operating model is? I could go on, and Leslie's looking at me, because she wants to join in on this. She and I are at EDEM, which I'll throw a little bit of it at in here. But seriously, seriously, can we please adopt a policy, I'm looking at everybody here, of writing and speaking in English so that we can all understand what the blue blazes were talking about? Thank you. End of round. Who wants to tackle that? Denise. Before Sarah comes in. I mean, I do sympathise, Ed. I'm not the fondest fan of techno-speak myself. And you've picked upon an area which is actually a really human area, the locality hubs, which is utilising and optimising all of our experience. With really, really well-trained, empathetic staff who can absolutely deliver this. But actually, it's recognising the limitations of that, because currently those buildings are delivering so well. Yeah, sorry. Leslie. Thank you. And Edward has articulated exactly what I was going to say, because it is very difficult for laypeople to understand this whole transformation project the way that it's stated here. For example, we've got acceleration of development of design capabilities. I mean, it just doesn't mean anything to anyone. But what I would also like you to just explain, you talk about customer insight. But you haven't really explained which customers, where. I mean, how are you... Is it surveys, questionnaires? No-one in my division has ever been asked a question or had anyone coming from this transformation programme to... What does it actually mean? Where is this customer insight coming from? But also, could I please ask that we do have layman's language? Because it's just... I've had to read this several times and ask several people around the committee what things mean. Because it's just indecipherable at times. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, really helpful challenge. And we'll definitely review how we're describing things. I think it is really important to say that the language and all of the terms that have been used are not in any way intended to be externally. But really helpful challenge about how we communicate internally as well. Insights? Yeah, thank you. If I have a range of different kind of categories of customer that we're referring to. And various different sources of insight in terms of their current experience and their needs. Quite a lot of data to show us that that was the case. Thank you very much. The customer hub that you were talking about, is that the Merston one? Is that a hub, one of these hubs? Because unfortunately, in my division, I don't have a library. And any of my residents who want to interact with Surrey would not go, say, to Oxted or Caterham where there might be libraries. So I'm just wondering how anyone in my division would actually be able to sort of have any interaction with Surrey at all. I have actually mentioned this before when we've been dealing with other issues on this subject, but my residents feel totally left out of any interaction with Surrey unless it's to moan about the potholes. So if you could let me know where they could go or how you would interact with my division with nothing there, you know, no sort of central place. Sarah? So one of the things that we're testing through the work, so we don't go through the tests that we're running at this point. We're looking to validate how we make best use of that whole network of community facilities that exist. And it's exactly one of the questions that we're testing through the programme. Denise? Thank you. And this is really where our Towns and Villages model comes into play because we'll be using local in here. If you could let me know what you're doing in my division, I can help you. Yeah. Thank you. Chairman, can I jump in very quickly? And I'll be very quick because I see we're falling behind time. If I went outside the gates of Woodhatch and stopped somebody and if I didn't get arrested, I would ask them what a customer experience journey meant. And I'm sorry for Eleanor, you don't get to travel, you're just customer experience. Again, that proves my point. What is customer experience journey? But then if I look further on the next page, Andy is Executive Director of Resources, then we have Karen Telfer, Portfolio Lead Communities. That's simple, that's understandable, but customer experience journey. I'm not decrying what mainly means. It is that title. And that proves my point. Please, can we speak English? Thank you very much. I'll keep quiet. Yeah, we have a brief response, then we can move on. I think you're looking for the word noted. Thank you. We move to Hazel's question number four. But can I just say that one of the things I think is extraordinary, if we're doing anything in the community, we always call it a hub. There must be a better word than hub. So I don't think people understand that either. But anyway, Hazel. Yes, thank you. Can officers please give greater detail on the sites chosen for locality hubs, the services they offer, and the definition of the term. And it would be really helpful if there was a map showing where they're located and, you know, are we telling residents that they exist and, you know, what sort of advice and information they can get from those locality hubs. Thank you. It helps with an application for something, that type of thing. So we will be able to sort of promote and make that very clear to customers. Yes. Thank you very much. That's really helpful. Would it be possible to do a map showing where the locality hubs are at the moment? And obviously, it's a changing where they exist. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. And as you say, Hazel, at the risk of confusing our residents and sort of having a library hub and a load clear on what that core offer is, clearly the aspiration is to have at this stage one per borough and district while we're still finalizing what the sort of essential components are. But we just need to have it on the website would be really helpful. Thank you. David. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to remind you that, and I was just calculating it out in my head, about half of my parishes, villages, villages, could deal with that because they'd get on a bus and go to one of the hubs, maybe two of them in some cases. But the other half, what's a bus? The last one that ran there was about 45 years ago. Really. So there are a whole bunch of villages around Surrey. This is not unique. I've looked at some other areas where they don't have public transport mode. So it's fine if you have the time and the resources to drive there, but that's not what we want to encourage, surely. So we need to think in terms of places that don't have public transport, nor taxes, by the way. Thank you. And I guess it is just really important to say that there is nothing within the model that would be available via going into a physical location. So it's about ensuring that there is a range of different ways that people can engage. So be that online or by going into a location like a library. So it wouldn't be the case that there would be anything that could only be accessed once we understand what the need is. Okay, thank you very much. If I can just, we're getting slightly bogged down. If I can urge brief questions and brief answers, that would be very helpful. Question five, Leslie. What are the different aspects of the culture work? And who is overseeing these different streams? Please. Thank you. So I'll keep this because we have, I think, touched on the culture a couple of times earlier. So the work essentially falls into four sort of categories of activities. So there's customer feedback. So things like customer satisfaction, data and that kind of thing. So all of those are kind of work really as part of an integrated whole, so into each other in terms of strands of work. And they're overseen at an officer level, they're overseen by the assistant director for registrations, coroners and customer strategy and up to the Transformation Board. Okay, Leslie seems happy with that. You'll be pleased to know that Leslie and I have agreed that question six has been answered. Question seven from Steve. Thank you, Chair. I mean, it's something we touched on earlier about efficiencies and in the paper, it talks to 938,000 pounds worth of efficiencies that have been realized through production of in-house capabilities, which on the face of it is good. So some more detail or clarity on what the nature of the scoping exercise for those efficiencies were on the original spend if the amount was found in one year. And how have those processes recently changed from the project work? And again, linking with the earlier point around looking at what efficiencies are currently in flight and being targeted in current budget that may will form part of this options paper coming to cabinet or delegated decision at some time. How is how are you basically factoring this piece of work in to that work as well? So a little bit of quite a lot in there really, but greater detail on the 938,000 pounds worth of efficiencies, please. Different delivery model. Adrian. Thank you. So just to build on what Sarah's saying, so it's a reduction in the spend of that program budget because we're not using external consultancy. And Leslie, this comes to a point you made earlier. So what do we mean by design capacity? So this is where we may have gone to one of the big four, an external consultancy to do process mapping work, to look at existing ways of working or how services are delivered. And then it's looking at how you can improve those ways of working, you can make them more efficient, you can optimize that way of working as well. So rather than spending exorbitant amounts on external consultancy, we now have the in-house capability to do that ourselves. Steve, did you want to come back? You don't have to. It's reassuring to hear that we are using in-house capability for certain to make these efficiencies is wrong term. And I've just looked at a report. And again, it's a reduction from the original business case. I mean, going outside and using external consultants, big four, they charge a lot. They're expensive. And if we can develop that in-house capability, that's certainly a plus point. Just to follow on from that one is the, as we talked about earlier about really looking about the efficiencies of the next stage gate. Are there any considerations in those efficiencies using the in-house design teams that are factored into those options or next stage gate? Or has that been remodeled? Yes, our assumption from now on is that we'll be using the in-house. And limiting external use of expensive contractors and et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Can we move to question eight from Hazel? Yes, there's a graph in the report that shows customer service contacts. And it shows a summer autumn peak in customer service contacts by a member of the public each year. And I'd really like to know what the reasons are for this and how can the root causes of this be tackled. Experiences a significant peak in calls from parents and carers regarding their children's education and send provision prior to the beginning of the new school year, the new academic year. And that's what that particular area is about. The top five inquiries during that period for 2024 were school transport, admissions, school admissions, existing education healthcare plans, so EHCP inquiries, send admissions process, and also the education healthcare and assessment inquiries. So, in order to reduce that demand and improve the customer experience, a number of improvements were put in place ready for the August and September peak in 2024. And that included a prevention approach to managing demand. So, for example, having more proactive communications out to parents earlier around what was happening in terms of their children's and education provision. It meant redesigning teams, so you may know that the home to school transport team was restructured and that created greater resilience, particularly in ensuring that when they had an increase in appeals, because you will know that the policy changed around that, they were better resourced to deal with those appeals quickly. We also temporarily centralized some multiple customer-facing functions and brought those into the contact center. So, those were around the special educational needs and disabilities help desk and also the contact center. We have a specific area that deals with inquiries for send. That's called the learner's single point of access or LSFAR. That decreased the call answer wait times and it also allowed us to resolve more issues at first point of contact because we had expertise from second line services in that front line, which was really helpful. And we also established a multi-disciplinary team approach using an evidence-based way of identifying what went wrong in previous years and how we should work better. In simpler terms, I appreciate the comments around the taxonomy that we're using in this report. In this particular instance, what it meant was that we brought together, in terms of customer experience, people from send areas, from school admissions, from home to school transport, information and technology, customer experience, change and transformation. And we brought them all together as one team to look at the problem holistically rather than looking at it in silos. So, during August to September 24, what this led to was customers waited less time for their calls to be answered in the same period compared to 22 and 23. So, on average, education inquiries, customers waited 3.6 minutes in 2024. That's compared to 13.7 minutes in 2022. And for the learner's single point of access, so that's those send inquiries, customers waited 1 minute in 2024 compared to 4 minutes in 2022. So, that is a summary of why that contact was happening, what we did about it and what the impact was from the customer. I would also say that that approach, because we were bolstering the expertise of the frontline in terms of managing those calls, it meant that fewer calls were passed back to more specialist teams. So, for example, the appeals team, they noticed that there was a greater resolution at that first point of contact, which is obviously a much better exercise. And what we were saying in terms of your local policy to further improve this issue. Absolutely. So, it was really important after this, that we did a what we call a lessons learned. So, we reflect on what happened, and we understand what can, what, what can we do better? do better what should we stop doing what should we start doing and in that lessons learned we identified that there was more work that we could do around better proactive comms and also can keeping better contact regular contact with customers so they weren't chasing us we were able to to to avoid that to repeat to reduce and repeat contact from customers so constant chasing us for several things for the same thing several times and also how we could take the learning from that the experiment of bringing of consolidating those teams those customer facing teams into one function in the front front door the contact center so we're looking at developing that now and testing another version of that outside of our peak period and so I'm sure that they'll be the program team will be able to give you more on that once once that's progressed further but yes we have a a number of actions that we'll be working on to implement ahead of 25 speak thank you Nancy's question number nine thank you chair can I ask a question before that question so the just to reinforce the comments counselor O'Reilly made about the fix sorry fix my street is excellent and the feedback I've had on it's very good can you just confirm that that it was the customer transformation program that drove the implementation I can see that you worked on it but I didn't it's not clear to me whether the driver for implementation came from this program and my main question is about um so given that there was no fixed operating model at the beginning of this program what controls are in place to prevent the council or how does account how do you choose which activities go through the test and learn process and whether they are going to be beneficial where might it be less easy for customers to engage um and then taking from that um essentially piece of redesign for the process of and you test it again and you go in that cycle so at any point along that we can say right that's a piece of learning that will be um that shows us that that's not a useful direction to go in um the premise I suppose of the test and learns so do you come across examples where if effectively you start your test and learn and then you realize this is in the sort of too hard bucket and you stop that one and move on with a different project or do you just keep plowing on until you fix something because it goes back to this the benefits uh using your example about scaffolding you know the costs and all of that and the benefits to the council could be quite small so if you've got to a point where you go this is really hard would that get stopped because the benefits are too small so I think the way that we've um targeted the test and learns is to be quite strategic initially in which areas we support so that will deliver benefit uh thank you very much um my question number 10. I'm not going to ask you in that form but I just want a reassurance from the deputy chief executive that if there is part of the vast empire that is not correct collaborating with the and cooperating with this that they're strongly encouraged to do so yes the right answer thank you very much indeed uh of course you can i just wanted to come back on lance's um question around the sort of interface between the customer program and um an initiative like fix my street it's a really good example because the task and finish groups which actually were really in-depth test and learn um foundations and the customer program was able to implement so we were able to be responsive and agile and reactive um and that's just an example of how um our ambitions could be realized through the customer program because as soon as we know something needs to be done there were some quick work that this program is happening having so i think it's a very useful question thank you uh thank you very much denise um hazel question 11. um yes thank you um please could you provide more detail about the statement in paragraph 20 of the report that those impact measures are developing for this program and how is this program process managed and how will success ultimately be measured after these are developed complaints um and they link through to the benefits that are set out in the business case so in terms of oversight of that we've got a project working group that's another example of really good collaborations the reporting process that we then put in place will ensure that wherever possible it will be automated so that will obviously be a more efficient way of us being able to track progress against that in terms of the governance beyond that project group there's a project board and then it feeds into the program steering group which as i mentioned earlier goes up into the transformation board and then be able to respond quickly to adjust if we need to and so that includes developing a dashboard that gives a really good view of our performance against those metrics we can incorporate into future reports to the capability that's helpful that's very helpful thank you very much okay um the last question here uh question 12 from steve thank you chair hopefully be brief um the there is um a big section in the report on risks which is very very helpful the the methodology that's used to track and score the risks in the in the customer transformation program um how can members be assured as adequately identifies significant risks and a following item on there is um we have assurance that it does actually align with the risk strategy risk management strategy that's adopted by this council and that comes to ordering all last came toward in governance i think in november last year or so thank you thank you um yeah so if i take that that second 24 um so so basically we work really closely so we take the same approach at a really detailed level within the program um the approach includes uh regular sessions which draw together the various different projects and work streams to bring together their projects or above one quick follow-on which is are there any uh risks identified from customer transformation program but have got themselves onto the um onto the the organization's overall overarching corporate risk register i haven't looked at it yet so so there aren't yet but in our probably within the context of the overall transformation portfolio thank you that's kind of where i was going okay thank you okay thank you very much if we could uh we have three uh recommendations which uh jake will put up on the screen that's okay um so i think we should we should uh generally welcome the uh uh drive to efficiencies um about the impact of engaging in complex expensive transformation programs which we've discussed um and i recommend yes chairman could you just briefly outline so uh nick can understand the recommendation if you don't mind oh yes okay um i would like to throw one in you won't allow it but the committee will not consider any future reports unless they're written in plain english i don't expect you to accept it but i just leave it out there um and the honorable member for the dittons i think will support me on that one i think the team have got that point yeah sorry i'm sure the team will and um sort of help you sort of sort of articulate that i certainly agree with what edward hawkins has just said and i really do feel there needs to be a recommendation on that because we have this i'm not trying to be horrid to the people who've done their very best year this morning but it happens far too often with all the select committees and things have to change that's what's happening here can you hear me yeah okay yeah no i mean i agree with the principle i think i would like to put it in more diplomatic language if you will um in the hope that we might get intelligible language back so it's intelligible language i'm looking for that we it would be very helpful if for the purposes of everything that we've been discussing that things should be put into terms which members of public could understand and hopefully all members of council or at least this committee yes we do have a version of that um do you want to put the uh one about uh officers consider clarifying some of the terminology we could say or simplifying yes we did have that one uh john i mean this is important but actually it's secondary you know yeah every message understood but i don't think what a home in it to ad nauseam which we're frankly in danger of doing but my comment is about the recommendation the substantive added value recommendations that all committees should put forward forward and really i'm looking at andy and and denise as to whether you know in the discussion we had at the first item that spent a lot of time rightly so on local government reorganization and andy's if i may say a cautious and prudent approach to additional spending in this time of uncertainty does he or the portfolio holder maybe even david lewis have any fundamental objections the way the recommendations are currently drafted i mean we will decide what we put in our recommendations but it's always helpful if we can to have a consensus about a recommendation but i'd be interested to see because this really isn't quite important what the general sentiment is about the way that is expressed bearing in mind the kind of assurances that were given to the committee right at the beginning of this meeting david lewis is keen to advice yeah thank you chair um i mean i don't have any difficulty with the actual proposal but the way it's written implies that this wouldn't happen anyway and i think you know i think what andy said and what i would certainly say is the the portfolio holder is that you know if lgr is to go ahead of course you know for this program and probably nearly everything we do as a council we're going to have to revisit our plans and so on so i i i just feel that the undertone of the way this is written implies that it wouldn't happen without recommendation and i'd like some sort of recognition of the fact that you know these things will obviously take place as part of the planning process if lgr were to proceed can i just say yeah i would add um subject to the final wording yeah we can potentially tune the exact the exact wording um to recognize the conversation we've had these are just a summary of the of the points that um and it sounds like the committee appreciate that i certainly think um as for the recommendation the second one you know what the ask of cabinet is this committee at this point um you know is to potentially we look again at the original decision and also that any future proposal that they would come here for for consideration but it sounds like the committee appreciate appreciate that this is just a summary at this stage yes i mean of three recommendations the first one i think is fine we welcome what's being said i think we could also in the second recommendation of the committee unminded we could welcome the recognition of the changes that will need to be made uh that have come from the officers today uh in relation to local government reform and the third recommendation is simply saying basically if more money is going to be spent we'd like to to scrutinize it first people happy with that steve so i mean it's acknowledged there is work going on david that's for sure but we are at a point in time and work to go on acknowledge but this is a point in time this is what we're seeing now and i know that there are plans to talk about it but we've been waiting for days on days etc for the um for the letter for the decision but this is point in time 5th of february 11 25 our recommendation is at this point in time and this committee has basically got that view that we're we're putting forward in the recommendation it's acknowledged that there is work going on in the council as and when it happens acknowledged and it will impact i mean let's not even get started on how is this going to impact unit four that's going to be an interesting discussion at some point but this is a point in time snapshot of what this committee thinks and it's a recommendation from here and going forward and it is acknowledged and however we tune that recommendation to acknowledge that there will be work going on fine we can do that but from my view um i think that that um recommendation about ldr is is pretty much bang on point can i just jump in here backing what steve's saying when we're looking at the planning committee we look at what's in front of us at that point in time we don't look at what's outside the uh red line but it is a decision that we have to take at that point in time on that matter which is absolutely right what steve's saying we can't include what might be uh happening around the corner i think what might be prudent is to recognize these are three areas that we want to um uh have recommendations in we should welcome the work that's been done already to try to uh the uh changes will be needed to what's done in the program uh if lgr uh comes on us um and that we should take those away and consult the committee unless people have a different view about the three areas yes i was really pleased to hear about the progress that's being made which uh at the meeting this morning which i don't think is fully reflected in the paper so i think we heard some really positive things that are going on which i it's a shame that they weren't in the report because um but i suppose that's one of the benefits of having a select committee and be able to sort of get that further information so um you know i feel i feel very sort of a lot of positive things are going on um a couple of things that i thought um were highlighted which where there needs to be further work is the data gaps in the baseline data and the fact that we'd asked for um that um data to being of the locality hubs um and for that to be put on the website so that residents know where they are and what services that they're they are offering so those are a couple of additions that i thought but i think perhaps we could be a little bit more positive about some of the information we received this morning thank you i think those are very good points jake i assume has noted those and we could add those into the three recommendations it's not just financial sustainability is actually what it's doing as you've described hazel uh yes you can certainly follow up on those yeah following his actions um i was just actually going to read out for people at home and also for nick the final wording if that's all right um so we've got the select committee welcomes work to drive efficiencies at the council so as to preserve preserve financial sustainability and thus protect services for residents the voice is caution about the challenges to delivering robust benefits for sorry residents and his concerns about lack of clear project end targets entailed by the dynamic customer operating model the select committee also voices caution about the potential impacts of engaging in complex expensive transformation programs in the face of possible local government reform and its as yet unknown effects on the council and the recommendation the third one the select committee recommends that cabinet revisit its decision on customer transformation and associated delegated funding taken in july 2024 in light of the uncertainties of local government reform to ensure that any future spending and investment continues to benefit surrey residents and or any future authorities and any new or revised proposal comes before this select committee for scrutiny before a cabinet decision is made and as we said i can tune the final wording there yeah with the caveat we will introduce the point that hazel has correctly made denise again in light of lgr when actually some of the work has happened already and as you can see the evidence is there that they've been successful and that there are rigorous governance um layers in place that was taken to implement this program because it's kind of it's kind of mid it's underway isn't it so actually we wouldn't want to interrupt as hazel said you know the good work that's going on just in light of actually giving further assurance when that rigor is in place with the transformation board the steering group and all of the governance layers that are in place absolutely what i said is i think we in the second recommendation we should welcome the work already done uh and the recognition that the changes that will need to be made uh if lgr happens if you're content with that i think it's broadly what you're saying well it's just are you asking for the decision to be taken again or are you asking for a decision to be taken on further funding being allocated oh further funding yes yes yeah maybe maybe yes yeah yeah i can definitely reflect that and tune the use of revisit there to clarify we're not talking about the original decision talking about any future ones if everybody's happy with that it's it's it's around the the decision has been made by cabinet right and it's been delegated as we've talked about earlier so there's another stage gate decision um coming forward which may or may not release certain funds and i think that's the clarity or the comfort that i'll be looking for based on that so i'm going to know what i've got here is where's the visibility of our delegated decision ask cabinet to bring that decision to cabinet for review others therefore planning consider pausing pieces of work that are not in flight and are not part of the identified efficiencies so it's it's around that that further release it's not about calling in the original cabinet decision because that's too late we can't do that um but it's basically any further releases of funds um for the customer transformation program in light of lgr nation looks like but we can tweak yeah that's helpful uh yeah not wishing to prolong that that's helpful clarification because um i think we've got to remind ourselves that delegated authority was given in a time before lgr and that's what this is looking at is that we're looking at that the decision to progress with the uh investment of funding um it is made in light of the change circumstances i accept that position in terms of the committee will be concerned about the delegate authority being given and an officer's making making that i kind of what i was alluding to was the the circumstances are changed to a certain uh to uh to a certain extent that will probably in my view the section 151 means it will ultimately be a cabinet decision in terms of but i can't uh give it give commitment to that but i can just see the reality that given the changing circumstances and the investment that's happening not just at least in this program but in other transformation programs that will want to revisit it as a whole in light of lgr so it's just reevaluating those plans and i think that sentiment is captured in that recommendation okay taking all those things into account we'll take those away and come back to the committee with um the uh uh wording for consultation so it remains to thank uh uh denise and sarah and elena for their very comprehensive and useful answers i think that's very encouraging um i know andy is staying so thank him later but thank you very much indeed oh and that's going as well thank you for your presence okay uh if we can move to item seven a unit for stabilization update david lewis the cabinet member for finance and resources with us and he's still with us and karen is still with us and adrian is still with us um if i can invite david to introduce the papers yeah thank you um thank you chair um this committee i think has been heavily involved in looking at the dbni program the my surrey program um and i think you're all probably uh fully aware of the the background um just just briefly to to to remind us the system went live so this is the switch from sap uh to unit 4 went live uh on the 6th of june 2023 um after a series of delays um after the go live um as you're all aware you know there were a number of um significant issues experienced with the system um and you know work took place in that period to try and address those issues and also you're aware uh last year and there were a number of internal audits carried out um of the um of the system and the majority of those came back with a number of key findings and unsatisfactory uh ratings um you yourselves um commissioned what i thought was an excellent report uh in in into the sort of lessons learned um particularly with regards to the program management and the go live that you know the lessons in that report should be fully uh included in the approach that we take going forward so although progress was made clearly in the periods in 18 months since since go live um by the autumn of last year we realized that there was still a number of outstanding problems and issues to be to be fixed um and to a certain extent i'm sure karen can update us a bit more there there was also you know a feeling that we we almost didn't know what we didn't know in terms of sort of trying to define exactly what the problems were in the scope of the problems um and there was also i think an important piece of work um which related to our we could expect unit 4 to deliver what we should be paying for and so on so all these issues have been wrapped up into a project um which we've in effect called the the the stabilization uh phase of stabilization project um which we kicked off as i think it was october september october time um with a view to completing that phase of the work into the final sort of optimization stage um and of course with any systems such as this there's always going to be issues that come come through you know even under the the business of usual model you know there will be um enhancements that we want there would be you know tickets that have to be resolved relating to to to to problems um i think it's also probably fair to say that you know the the stabilization work that has been going on um two points wanted to make one is that although i don't sit on the stabilization board um i have been uh and we're such in place um a process where i'm regularly updated by by liz and karen uh on the work of the boards every two weeks we we we have a a meeting to go through um the the the board's work and giving an update on the progress and i found that incredibly helpful and the second point to make is that um you know as well as yourselves looking at the work of the uh the stabilization board the auditing significantly different and stephen one of other members who sit on that committee will be aware of that wasn't significantly different from the paper that's come to you today um so i think that's probably enough and happy to between us try and answer your questions thank you okay thank you very much indeed the first question is from hazel um yes paragraph two notes that there are 41 outstanding tickets with unit four and three of these have been open for over a year um can you please provide more detail about these three tickets and the key findings of the audit reports the return so at the time of writing report yes there were three tickets outstanding with our regular liaison with unit four we have a schedule to delivery of those three to have completion target completion dates for all the actions within those audit reports and i'm pleased to say that all actions with a target date of before today we've completed so we're on track for each of those the um the integrations audit which was partial has been re-audited with a reasonable assurance rating so that's improved and the accounts receivable which was a reasonable has been re-audited with a substantial um assurance there is one item there under accounts payable which is the purchase order reflecting in correct amount the q1 release upgrade i come to hazel for supplementary did you say a ticket a purchase order or purchase orders purchase orders thank you hazel so are there are you happy that everything's on track yes so we meet twice a week with unit four and any new tickets are prioritized we've got a number of categories and we prioritize those and go through every single one of those tickets and expect an up progress is marked uh andy uh yeah so just a little bit of caveat and dose reality here um uh karen uh quite rightly said this is the uh they're going to go into the test environment in march um and some of these um fixes we we we uh asked and i know we wanted layman's terms uh so apologies we asked for a hot fix uh which is something that they can put into the system right now as opposed to waiting for an upgrade and q1 uh to march 2025 is the next planned upgrade where a lot of these fixes are going to be applied and the caveat is they've got a test they've got a working test through our uh testing system so where there is a solution being worked and we're ever hopeful that that will work um forgive me if i i have a little bit of cynicism about once it's in and in the go live production environment uh that is actually actually working so the plan is that that is going through that process uh but until we have got um the testing environment and uh thanks jen um thanks andy for clarification on hot fix versus planned upgrade so i must admit i have seen this uh audit governance as well and resource and performance before and my curiosity is now even more peaked around what these three items that have taken so long to to address are and so they sound like they're quite big fixes um and again it's one of those items that it'd be just my pure nosiness more than anything else it would be interesting to understand what these three items that sorry you're asking unit 4 to to fix are and then that may help us understand why they've taken so long for unit 4 to come forward with them so if that's possible if we can get that data that would be very very helpful please unless you wish them now you know the one is incorrect values there was something different from the screen okay thank you very much um on the face of it doesn't sound like they're huge issues but understood that there may well be um something under the uh uh in the in the design that do make them difficult to implement and again that you know it's possibly a question for for i don't really want to dig into it too much about why and how the um the time for unit 4 to address fees you know it's over a year and from the audit governance i think andy you made mention that um we possibly have shot ourselves in the foot in some regard by signing it off and saying it's live so again it may well be that unit 4 quite rightly coming back saying well if your needs fixed then you're gonna have to pay some more money so i don't know if that's the situation but at some point i don't know if committee are minded we might want to have a chat with unit 4 directly at some point obviously if that's kind of contact complicate any um discussions contractually then we'd obviously need to know but that might be something committee might want to consider as well thank you just to clarify that andy yeah um it's a good point at what point do we uh lever in your um weight to the argument effectively um so contractual arrangements have changed significantly um since the stabilization board board was uh enacted um and even though you know there is a level of hindsight here in terms of we went live in june 2023 and yet we we are here now to uh discussing contract arrangements uh post that but we've got to deal with uh the the reality that is is facing us um i'm all for um uh where select committees are offering support in a uh difficult situation to move forward uh leveraging that in so at that point in time um i would like to to be able to do that at this moment in time we're working in partnership it's it's fairly collaborative to trying to move this forward you can hear about these solutions not being additionally charged so that is working but um i envisaged there will be a time when it will be a difficult uh contract management um so i would like to keep that offer um on ice until uh we can we could we can draw that through so um thanks and i think at this moment in time it's working collaboratively uh but there's nothing to stop the select committee uh indeed enacting its powers to to look at key suppliers in terms of what they are what they are doing in terms of supporting the council i think it was very diplomatically put very good uh was it david wants to come in now in my in my youth i worked for two of the top three from global terms systems houses and they had quite different approaches to testing one relied on massive or extensive let us say testing of products before they let them loose on the customer and the other released them much more rapidly which customers rather liked in the first instance and left it to the customer to find the problems i'm quite interested to know which if either of those two approaches is adopted by our current supplier in this case and also from section 151 point of view whether you have any views on how that ought to make us look in future projects um yeah i mean karen can probably come in uh from the cold face in terms of uh experiences of unit fours testing um from my perspective um looking at it uh from above the more of the latter in terms of um the the releases and um up to in individuals uh organizations to to work out some of the aspects of of of the release um we uh we're also we we uh we found out through one of the upgrades that certain upgrades were excluded uh to to the organization as well and so we are still even now learning through upgrades um which is a bit which is frustrating and we've expressed our frustration to unit four uh the fact that we are now still learning uh when we're going through upgrades and it doesn't therefore give us much assurance going forward to the next upgrade that it will be a very smooth business as usual aspect and that's i think reflected of their testing testing regime um going forward in terms of future procurements and systems testing should be part of that and uh and sorry the upgrade part it should be part of that how does a system um user uh go through the the upgrade what's the upgrade experience how does it how does that work through and if matt scott was here to answer about the it environment and what they they would be looking at as well but there's definitely learning live learning in terms of the upgrade as well as from the procurement as well thank you okay thank you can we move to question two from edward thank you chairman um largely been answered in many ways i mean it's it's yeah just looking at the report where we say that um yeah staff have been redirected onto the program from other activities there was a clearly a cost on and that and um two unit four specialist system architect specialist system architect been employed to support the resolution of the issues i'm a question whether that was a wise move but i understand why it's been done um some very careful answering regarding the uh the contract arrangements but basically the question is are we having to pay additional sums on this or are we getting that as part and parcel of the over the initial contract which may um i was going to say flawed um which may not have covered um the uh the so what situation or scenario um but question are we having to pay out more are we getting some of the costs back or is this now drifting into the realm of contract negotiations which i would understand is not something we should be discussing in this forum at this point in time there's your cop-out thank you jim just to clarify for expertise so apologies if i didn't make that clear in there um we are also monitoring very closely any system so yeah um so uh so without doubt the contract management agents that we're now have in place um um and as cameras described we are actively having that arrangement i i do think the unit four probably right up until this point we're thinking this is this is quite an easy ride uh for an implementation that is gone because we are now rigorously holding them to to account uh refunds and service credits were coming are coming into the fore um now that will get more uh tense in terms of going forward is it because we will still continue to hold them to to account on on that aspect and how then they they react to that um and and how we work that forward uh i would say they've reacted very well they are they are working collaboratively uh with us but there are always um bumps in the road in terms of upgrades where things don't go according to plan uh we're not cited on certain things and we'll get uh we'll raise these as uh from from from that perspective so we'll deal with that through the contract uh because the contract is the contract and we're following it through because one of the first things we had to do um is to look at the contract and what levers that we had to call uh through that which is goes back to the point is i'm more than happy to uh for you to call in unit four to uh to uh to hold them to account uh as a key supplier uh as well going back to the additional costs yes there has been additional costs now um obviously within the base budget there are costs around uh supporting the system and using the system but there's been additional costs this year 350 000 in terms of the stabilization board um stabilization program and we're looking at the optimization program as well um and there's been money put aside in the budget in the reserve for that one off of 1.2 million now when we look at that going forward there's going to be a test and challenge about one of the things that we need to undertake to optimize the system the stabilization was to address the fundamental controls as you saw from the internal audit report you can't have an erp system that has got minimal assurance on on the controls that was what we're trying to fix and um you can see the progress we are fixing those there's a lot more to be done on the optimization optimization and the manual work around that that are have been inherent within the system since it went live and we're only really looking to now address at the optimization stage john thank you and you know i'm a bear with full brain as far as all this is concerned i just speak as a you know an ordinary member of the public um i think that you may mention two figures 350 000 and 1.2 million and the second one is a rather large figure now and i would be um the question is is has this has this additional money certainly the 1.2 million has that was that envisaged when when it was cut off when the the task and finish group reported when they went to cabinet everybody's happy looks as if it was all all all um all baked all guns blazing or whatever metaphor you want to choose but now we seem and please tell me if i've misunderstood this you know other figures large figures are now emerging are these figures oh we didn't realize we'd have to spend 1.2 million or no this is quite normal we would we would have anticipated at this stage and going on to to spend that kind of money i mean this is really important stuff and if i if you can give reassurance to not so much to me but the committee and the people we represent that would be helpful or if you're signaling well no it's not going as well as we like that is also something that people need to know um so i think you have to you have to appreciate that i've come into this um at this point in time so the original uh benefits case and implementation uh proceeded to do one thing um and at the point that i've come into it uh the stabilization the 350 000 was to do uh the the uh the core basics if you like and stabilize uh the system and then optimization is to actually get out the benefits from the original case now was that planned from the original outset no of course of course it wasn't at this point in time 18 months down the track but to to to enable us to get the most out of the system um and to deliver some of the benefits that were originally forecast that's what i'm putting forward and have put forward to cabinet in terms of these is needed it's further investment to get the most out of the system further investment of a 1.2 million that you are there you're a new new bloke new boss as it were that you identified that maybe your predecessors hadn't identified you see where i'm coming from it i think all of of us are a little bit uneasy and that and a substantial amount of new money is going to be requested of cabinet to get this thing still on the road now is that a fair summary that i've just given you yeah that it's it it was a difficult decision for for cabinet and when i'm coming in to say to maximize the system uh because the implementation hasn't gone hasn't gone according to the plan um crystal ball how much more beyond the 1.2 million is required finger in the air so what i asked the um the pro the program team and the uh the leads uh so the it director the finance director hr director about what is needed and some of the what 1.2 million is to address some of the backlogs so it should be clear on on that because there's been issues since go live that we simply haven't addressed in terms of uh particularly around around pensions uh and auto enrollment so that we've got a backlog of cases that need to be dealt with so there's a a large proportion of 1.2 million is to actually deal with some of the backlog cases um and we have to do it and we have to deal with that um because this is uh down to individuals uh pensions contributions so there there is that aspect um so what i asked was what what is required one off to uh to deliver the optimization that's the figure that has has come back i've asked for further clarification in terms of is this absolutely uh required and also what is the ongoing cost therefore to maintain the uh the current system in it in its optimized uh state but also then the manual work rounds that we've currently got uh that we've got in place would then be released off the back of that as as well so i haven't got a crystal ball to say that further investment were um may may or may not be required but i'm asking those those questions the 1.2 million was one off because i'm envisaging that this is being done going forward with it within the base budget okay thank you um if we could move to uh steve who has the next three questions lucky me um so um no pressure no i think the the process we've already um we've already heard a little bit about the process and the progress on the pause project pipeline and system workarounds i think we might have already covered that one chair if i'm honest yeah uh so uh question four paragraph 32.2 refers to potential technical alternatives providing a solution in the absence of a solution from the supply and again i think we touched on this a little bit also where there are manual work rounds and i think the three items that have been talked around about um the incorrect values or the um adding an accept button etc you probably have to do some of those but if we can just um if are we i've answered my own question i think we've already talked about it but we're basically looking to get rid of any manual work arounds and include them in the um core functionality of unit four whether that's in the 350k of the um stabilization or the 1.2 mil of the other items but if we can just get some clarity on that one that would not be helpful in that instance please so certainly those manual workarounds are not encouraged um but we do and we are keeping a very tight list of every single one of the manual workarounds that use throughout the system um um in terms of i think that answers that that's helpful thank you and the the following fifth question is the program's new governance arrangements um ensuring the best outcome i think we've we've kind of batted this one a little bit um in various committees all in governance and previously and before this committee as well but if we can maybe talk about how you you feel that those new governance arrangements arrangements are ensuring the best outcome and the visibility to the various stakeholders from if that would be helpful thank you so as and the subsequent boards we have an operational board and a technical board and those meet fortnightly as well and those also are represented by officers within those various directorates so they feed in they produce progress reports feed in the issues and concerns and concerns and that fee comfortable in raising issues and concerns throughout we expect that that continues right through to the optimization phase thank you very much uh question uh six which should now be asked by leslie thank you how are the new procurement regulations 2024 likely to affect future uh i took counsel on this from my procurement colleagues and it is quite a lengthy um response but just to answer your question in two parts for for future procurements their work to our advantage there's a tradition transition from neat to mat that is the most economically advanced advantageous tender to the most advantageous tender and this adjustment allows us to place greater emphasis on non-financial factors the introduction of competitive flexible procedure and so that's replacing multiple existing procedures um the new competitive flexible procedures provides enhanced transparency and feedback mechanisms so each year any contract with a value of more than five million must publish performance against a minimum of three dominated kpis enabling greater transparency for low bias so those are the three um the key changes in terms of how this would have affected our original specification if it had been written today the specification itself wouldn't have changed the functionality we needed was pretty clear however we could have designed our own procurement process to be able to interact and negotiate in a different way the contract effectively through kpis yes david david wants to come in first david yeah i just wanted to say that i mean my understanding of the new procurement act and so on i don't think as current as i said would would have in itself would have affected the the outcome in terms of the decision that's made but i do think there is a which is whether or not unit four was the right solution through the procurement process so what i'm saying is that you know i think there's a question to be asked about how we procure and whether whether unit four actually was the right right answer i'm not that i don't think that had we been operating under the new procurement act i don't think that would necessarily have led to a different decision but i think that decision itself you know is something that we we do need to think about throughout procurement process and i know darren cox and his team have been looking at that and so i say i think that's exceptionally helpful did you have a supplementary i i did would it be possible to actually send that to us because i'd like to actually read it in detail rather than try and sort of pick it out now if that would be possible please thank you very much thank you steve and then david thanks um again this the the new procurement regulations i know there's a procurement module purchase module in unit four um the million dollar question is the um these new procurement regulations are they um going to be included and updated in the unit four core system is that part of the standard system upgrade path or is that part of the 1.2 million or is that extra money that we're going to have to basically look at going forward thank you it's not and the normal upgrade cycle david so you may have partly answered that or it is already but if the but then new procurement processes that had now had been in place at the time when we were on the procuring side of the table would the documentation that we presented to the potential uh sellers have been significantly different from what they were in practice i'm not a procurement expert but i do not believe so really it would be marginally marginally similar but some of the um bit easier to track okay so if you reviewed the documentation that was submitted as at the request stage request for tender i suppose um was that incomplete or and if so how did that happen um again a bit like andy um i think um but the the honest answer to that is um you know the decision was was made uh some years ago um in terms of that that specification so uh myself or karen can answer about whether the the um documentation was uh complete or or not um however what i can say is um that i have uh asked um internal audit to to do a review of of the uh to look at um from a lessons learned perspective effectively how that was put together um and therefore the the award from from that perspective now i'm just agreeing the the terms of reference uh to that and that's from a lessons learned perspective so um generally you know i would like to say that the documentation was completed because generally you know these things go through a pretty rigorous uh process however given um yeah i'm currently in this committee answering questions uh about the the implementation i think it's uh it's uh value well well spent in terms of lesson learned over that absolutely absolutely because there has to be either the specification wasn't adequate or something's gone wrong in the steps that followed and we need to learn where that's where that's happened surely and i think we as a committee ought to be wanting to know the answer to that question so i'm sure you'd like to like it to know as well okay um nick yeah i hope that works yeah thank you i just want to clarify where we are in this discussion because what we seem to have understood in the last half an hour or so is that we have two extra costs totaling i think 1.5 million we understand that it's been well explained what i wanted to just clarify is where the lessons learned are because we've had a task and finish group the original um estimated costs for the procurement was i think 19 million and we've ended up spending another 11 million already taking it to 30 so i find it quite difficult to understand how the original specification was okay when we ended up having to pay that amount extra as i said steve and his um committed to task and finish group may have covered that already so the question i'm raising now is perhaps irrelevant but i just think it's worth covering here now thank you well um i think as a statement and assessment um i i i can't disagree with what you just would what you just said john thanks chairman i was going to wait to write at the end but since nick has used the the figures that we're talking about and then 1.5 million simple question has that already been approved by cabinet and if so when i've just been looking through cabinet reports for last since september and i can't see anything there or is it something that is going to be recommended to cabinet to disperse the 1.25 million plus the 355 000 so it's just really is it already public knowledge or is it something new that we've just discovered or you've outlined to us today i stand to be corrected by andy but the 350 000 which was out of this year's budget for the stabilization work is money that was came out of existing budgets it wasn't money that we had to ask for in addition it was covered by existing budgets the 1.2 million is included in the budget that was approved by council yesterday included in all the budget work that came through in the papers yesterday that's very interesting probably on page 196 so paragraph two paragraph four so nobody would actually have read that's the nature of budgets let's move on to question seven which i think stands very well considering the last 10 minutes of the discussion lance yes thank you can you please provide more detail about the quote technical issues linked to the stability of the main platform which proved uh problematic that feels like an understatement doesn't it um the subsequent review of data integrity and the lessons that were learned from this process uh i guess a brief it's going to be difficult within the hr area are very complex we have multiple employment types multiple types of multiple options so there are a lot of different toing and froings between the screen and the back end that's where we've encountered a lot of difficulties it's been slow there obviously are a humongous amount of rows of data within the system so that process backwards and forwards is very slow that's where we've encountered some of the difficulties and the the supplier has been slow to come to fruition so we've been looking at other alternatives as to how can we do that can we redesign the forms can we put something else in the back end to make that run a bit quicker those are again um i don't want to refer to lgr but that all of that data cleansing work will stand us in really good stead for anything that comes ahead of us throughout our process of data integrity and cleansing you know it's it's clear that those data integrity issues are one of three things it's people processes and and the technology so we're refining each of those as we go so just on data integrity um as you said it's people processes or technology i mean when you say technology we're not losing bits of data in technology so it's not that sort of level okay that's cool um the other question um how to put it so this uh to and fro from the front end screens to the back end is that all within unit four or so it is a pure unit four issue oh okay okay well i'm clear so thank you for that okay thank you uh hazel question eight um yes uh paragraph 32.6 refers to and i quote fundamental constraints for system functionality which is having an impact on ways of working um present from the outset um this is concerning especially in the context of the committee's task and finish group report on unit um what do you think that these design limitations is that were not fully or clearly mapped at the outset um that that did have an impact on the design and implementation the task and finish group recommend i think steve has a supplementary thanks i mean i think this question relates to paragraph 32.6 or so um in and also there's a piece in here which talks to there are a number of technical system constraints and what you're talking about is process mapping about implementation so very very different you might sorry thank you so the technical system constraints i guess i guess question there with that back end that toing and froing it is struggling to deal with the number of the thousands of thousands of rows that we've got within the system and the village okay okay so i'm just cognizant that that's kind of opening up a can of worms for me in um system specification performance management and making sure environments are fit for purpose um if we're saying we don't have capacity in hardware and more speed of hardware um that's a that's a massive issue that i don't really want to get into otherwise i'll get shut up by chair but the the the technical items that the system content constraints if we get it down to the nuts and bolts of it is is it are we saying that unit four isn't technically capable of delivering what this organization wants i.e um we have processes that are not that we can't implement in unit four in a in a performant way um in a technical way is that what we're saying we are and continue to monitor the performance of all of that work putting everything that we can in place okay so the question is not really answered i'm afraid and as much as um is this is the system fit the purpose to deliver what this organization needs from its requirements in both the performance method i would imagine it is and again that's another question that we may bring up later on about doing a deep dive into the um the hardware and the performance metrics of of unit four the unit force it's on the cloud doesn't it it's cloud-based so so it's not actually our hardware it's unit four's hardware and there will be different levels of um and again sorry committee i'm diving off on the deep end but there'll be a there'll be a spec somewhere which basically tells you how many users concurrent users you need how much performance you need etc and then we're probably going to do it end up in a deep dive and having a look at that at some point if we've got performance issues and performance uh problems that the organization is having to deal and put in manual work arounds which is which is not good but the key yes key item here that does unit four satisfy the technical needs of this organization so um um arguably yes because it's it's running at the moment now that is a um a kind of a get out really because um you're right in terms of the the rabbit hole that this goes down to in terms of stability um so being quite upfront with you at the last program board um i asked unit four where's my assurance around the stability of the system and for them to come back and give some assurance around it pretty fundamental 18 months after go live uh to ask such a question um so i'm not going to sit here and give you assurance that this uh product is 100 fit for uh fit for purpose uh because i've just asked that question last last week um so i'm asking for that assurance from them to come back because there are stability issues where things are tripping over because of the capacity issues and things like manual work arounds around uh and and you know i'm an accountant i'm not a technology from a whatever server needs to be re-tripped or whatever goes on but this is what i'm hearing from uh it colleagues and i'm asking those questions as well so with all the workarounds that we we've got um so in spite of of of the of the product that we've implemented uh we that's working and we're managing to do things but is is it is it uh the the the right product for us going forward that's that and with the stability issues that's still a question that is being posed to unit four thanks andy for the candid nature of your reply and and it's it's um reassuring that you're not able to give us assurance because you've got waiting for the answers but again the rabbit hole that we disappeared down into goes back to the the very very beginning and i appreciate you've only just stepped into this inherited all of this but goes back down to the original requirements piece of um how well was it specced how well was it basically it it opens up that whole thing and again i'm not sure what benefit there is about doing that but again that's the committee to decide but one of the things that would be quite helpful to to get would be the outcome of that assurance from unit four that you've sought and if they're not able to provide that they would probably provide some alternate options for improving their performance improving the capacity of the cloud-based system etc etc and and and again you know i'm sure committee would be helpful to or welcome that kind of feedback as well as as in where you see it as well but thanks for your candid responses on that one it's very very useful thank you very much uh uh question nine plainly has been answered and i believe question 10 as well not really question 10 i mean it's a bit of an open-ended we discussed this at the customer transformation piece and again um an item here is is assuming the lgr local government review does happen is there any uh is there any work at the moment given the given the amount of money that's being spent on optimization um is there any thinking around how unit four the system uniform may be sliced and diced depending upon what mix of two three however many unitaries that may come down to sit within or divide up sorry is there any thinking and forward planning on that at the moment because you know that's what's part of the part of the the deal here is the it's going to be quick and it would just be helpful to understand if there is any um thinking around that at the moment rather than being on the back foot of that particular decision thank you yeah so um without without doubt and not trying to second guess whatever government announce or then come up with in terms of any decision later on on on in the year um if you look at any lessons learned from local government reorganization it infrastructure is is is a key consideration um so the the unit for um and it's probably been at the foremost because of the current current yeah current situation we find ourselves in and trying to optimize it um we we have to make the assumption that surrey county council is the uh the biggest organization within within surrey has has the erp solution for whatever unitary unit trees are coming and at that point we would then look to um uh change the optimization program to be quite an extensive onboarding program for whatever that looks like and then it will then look at the aspects you say about it is this a split is this a shared service so on so those things will need to be answered don't have the answers now but the the planning around that is is currently in our minds about what is what is is likely to to come down so when we're looking at optimization that is in the back of our minds in terms of we've got to again a bit like the customer transfer uh formation program we'll have to be uh agile to react to what comes down the line from from the lgr particularly from unit four optimization what does that what does that look like knowing that we might not have the definitive answers uh because of government's decision until later later in in in in the year but i'm hoping that um we will have some solutions because the reality is um we will probably be focusing on uh other issues than it infrastructure when it comes to lgr so it's is our job to make sure that the it infrastructure is is legal and safe for whatever comes forward from uh from from sorry footprint going forward so it is on the radar in terms of consideration but it's very as you appreciate a complex and risky situation um okay i mean that's really helpful to understand in as much as it is on the radar as such but the other item off the back of that is in reference to the 1.2 million for optimization that we're talking about is is there um consideration of the fact that whatever is being looked at for say the use of that 1.2 million to optimize the current platform given our current set of requirements given our current structure is there a kind of a checkpoint to say actually all of those items that we are considering don't actually fit within whatever comes out of the lgr discussion and we may stop that and then refocus those is that in track are you that that's all that's on the table you're not basically forgive me you're not just going to plow ahead and spend all that money and go actually you have to chuck it all away and then do something else thank you yeah yeah that's one of the sense checks in terms of the the work and the investments that's going to go into the optimization and be funded um bearing in mind the 1.2 million going back to that the additional amount that's coming from the one-off reserve that's been created part of that is to deal with the backlog issue and part of that is to optimize it but that sense check about will this um optimization change uh last the test of time going forward in in terms of any lgr yeah john i was just going to say and i think andy's covered it but but but if you take for example the work that needs to be done on pensions which i think accounts are about half of that 1.2 million you know and a lot of that's not system work necessarily is it it is actually doing physical checking uh type type work whether lgr goes ahead or not my understanding is that we will still have to do that that work because we've got to get it right for all of our pensions you know so so there's there's no um regret cost in in terms of doing that it's got to be done whether whether lgr happens or not and i think you know the previous discussion about fit for purpose i mean that's really i think the way i see it is is is the very basic question that we have to ask and get answered before we can then start thinking about taking unit 4 forward for a different model of our authorities until we've got an answer to that question i think in a way it's almost academic about the next step you know we've got to get that reassurance certainly that that it's fit for purpose in terms of the architecture and the performance and everything in order to actually take it forward so i mean it that's how i see it yeah farron and andy may disagree but that's that's my interpretation yeah okay can i just come in from it follows naturally on from from what david just said put the recovery organization aside for the moment let's just stick to the in the issue at hand again i'm wearing my loony bin hat on i shouldn't use that word but you know what i mean um so we've got one point two for one two million in the budget blah blah blah but we're still not sure whether unit four can deliver the goods as we would like is that right um well okay i'll just finish before we don't want to an ongoing dialogue between us um but that's what i heard that they may not be able to optimize or to do everything we want from it um and people talking about david was talking about how to talk about reassurance okay what if that reassurance doesn't come my basic question is whether it's us or successful authorities are we stuck with unit four is there any alternative i mean this is pretty apocalyptic i'm deliberately being apocalyptic here you can you can draw me back from the cliff and say little johnny don't worry too much it's not going to happen like that but the vibes that i've got just listening in are not altogether encouraging on that point to you chat so um so if i if i take your um apocalyptic hat and put it on myself the the business case uh that is submitted as for uh for um for any potential lgr if you're going to be apocalyptic around it it would then include a new erp system for whatever unitary or unitary is needed and it's therefore very much different to one that would be on the existing platform um catholic is absolutely spot on the first thing we've got to do is to make sure is this a fit product um and so my my gut instinct says it is because it's working but it's not necessarily going to do everything that it said it was going to do and there's some stability issues that we need to get assurance and it may be that we have to accept that it won't be where we want it to be and can and but that will be then uh uh probably a future decision in terms of we can run with this system with its limitations uh to the point in time of when it needs upgrading or replacing at that point but if it comes back to the um that that position where it's not fit for purpose then there is a potential scenario where there is a reintroduction of a new erp system for for the injuries going forward my final quick point the word is limitations you know when we talk about you know at this late stage limitations qualifications reservations i think this was you know when we the whole process with this stuff and the completion of the task group work nobody would envisage i would have thought limitations reservations concerns one would have hoped to have a system that once it's chugging along would be chugging along not limitation here limitation there again is that a fair summary yeah so um let's be a sunny uplands now the the um the the system is chugging along and we we've got to be mindful of where we've come from in terms of the minimal assurances on the internal audit reports and the controls that there are in but is it operating as per the specification and and through the implementation no it's not because of what i'm hearing from the uh the issues around the system uh technical aspects and the stability issues so there's there's still assurances there that are needed but it's it is operating and therefore we are not saying that it is uh we need to go and get a new system now but we do need to get that assurance about uh uh fit for purpose product particularly as we're going into this potential divergent point with uh with with with lgr or knowing what it's effectively what its limitations are in terms of its opera in terms of its operations okay thank you very much i think we now come to recommendations this is going to be yes indeed this will be interesting right there are three recommendations up here yes please yeah i can read this out so this far what we have reflecting the conversation is the select committee welcomes the continued prioritization of work on the way to keep resolving issues with my surrey through contact negotiations and changes to governance but remains concerned about the number and nature of outstanding issues the cost and impacts the council and its staff and the nature of the original specification used when procuring the system the select committee recommendations should we do one at a time because i think that is unarguable yeah is everybody happy with that isn't it yeah uh what oh sorry andy andy just one request throughout this it's not um instead of my sorry can we change it to unit four oh yes thanks yeah absolutely yes happy to do that and as with the last ones the exact final wording we don't you know we can you can agree later we don't have to go through word for word but yes commit a change certainly um and then we have the select yet the subtle difference yes okay is everybody happy with that one okay yeah thank you we the last bit or half sentence the nature of the original specification when you be good that's happened we've already commented on that i'd much rather we look forward yeah the first part i get we're working on but seriously do we need to go back um and the nature of the original specification when you we we all understand it was not as robust and as good as we would possibly like it with hindsight but you know i mean personally i just think it's irrelevant that part except that uh the the initial uh look at this by orbis indicate uh said that the procurement was uh not done very well stronger than that we then became assured that actually there's nothing wrong with the procurement it was the implementation and i think what we're now being told is that there were problems with the procurement plainly problems with the procurement and therefore it may be something we want to look at again karen wanted to yeah sorry can i just come back i mean why didn't you just say you didn't agree with me it'd be much quicker um you know if you want to say build that part up but yes let's not look back we want to see um look at the procurement system going forward we spent many a happy hour under steve's tutelage guidance uh etc looking at and a number of adjectives that i can think of um looking at the original basis and we've chewed that to death yes we need to took the lessons learned forward i get but not what's happened in the past i'm not a great you know let's look at the past i think there's no problem in changing the last part of that to uh looking forward uh reassessing procurement in relation to new new acquisitions yes hazel isn't on you know isn't it lessons learned yes on those the irrelevant words i think yes thank you yeah i think jake's got that everybody yes absolutely um noting the potential i think andy mentioned the potential of current internal audit review of the original specification so not wanting to duplicate that but it was just a reference to it there yeah and i'm like this is alluded to in the committee i've um i'm currently drawing up terms of reference with internal audit about the procurement specification effectively of thank you brilliant okay and then we have the select committee recommends that officers update the select committee approximately three months from now or at the most appropriate time on the progress in resolving the remaining issues with you with uh unit four rather and the effectiveness of the new governance arrangements be happy with that i would have thought the obvious time to do it is at the end of the stabilization period really yes would that not be the time to give a report on i just did three months on the basis it was one month following the uh the 31st of march okay deadline so that but i didn't know if you wanted to refer to some stabilization yeah in that recommendation yeah yeah yeah put that in yeah i can add that okay we'll put that in and test on the third oh sorry oh steve sorry um just possibly if you can add a reference into there to the um performance of the system as well yeah because again that that is an item that that is of the performance well it's the performance capacity um of the system so if there are um issues being experienced within your organization of performance of a performance system that can be should be addressed by possibly some configuration issues of the cloud or upgrade of cloud capacity and then that would hopefully um belay any future issues with um production or it would it would certainly improve the user experience for our um staff and the people using it going forward as well okay i think that's fair enough yeah okay we move to number three fantastic thank you and then uh the final one the select committee recommends that cabinet consider undertaking a review to understand and evaluate the likely impacts of any local government reform on the use of unit 4 to deliver the core financial functions of any future authorities as part of its wider work on how it infrastructure would change due to lgr and that the results of any review are shared with this select committee so that reflects back to the previous discussion we had with the um on the customer service stuff doesn't it for and the future use of uniform will clearly be part of the planning for any lgr of the lgr so i don't think we we need a separate piece of work if it's recognizing that there is a piece of work to be done that will be part of the lgr process yes we we can note that the um deputy chief executive uh basically has this in hand not those words but that's the i meant a paper looking at what has just happened not trying to blame you for the whole process yeah yeah yeah i can make that a bit leaner certainly yeah that's um but yeah i think there's an acknowledgement there that it's underway but potentially whenever you know if cabinets consider when that review does take place whenever it's appropriate we're updated essentially does that make sense is that an accurate reflection of yeah some people have said yeah okay fantastic okay everybody agreed and they'll all be circulated to the committee um in the next day or so and then uh feedback and then we'll agree the final recommendations uh can i thank uh uh andy and karen and david for uh some very frank um answers and uh detailed answers to what to the concerns that plainly we all share so thank you very much indeed okay can we move to uh then item eight recommendations tracker uh then the work program any comments on the recommendations tracker anyone no okay thank you very much and the uh forward pro a work program um the one thing i think is not in here um is that there is the the new edi handbook for staff i get is completed uh we haven't yet seen it bearing in mind that we were excluded from the process when there was last day handbook on a part of edi despite it having been in our uh in our forward work program it was removed uh i'm asking for us to see that at the earliest possible opportunity and i know jake has requested this everyone agreed thank you very much uh the date of the next meeting is the 2nd of april thank you very much everyone and the meeting is closed if we could stop