To discuss the report of the Informal Agresso Working Group with Councillors Mrs Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere and Richard Farrell.
Minutes:
The Committee had invited Councillors Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere and Richard Farrell to attend the meeting to discuss the findings of the Agresso Working Party.
A list of questions had previously been circulated and formed the basis of the discussion.
It was confirmed that the Vale had not appointed a “Champion” to look after its interests, however there were suitably qualified Officers and Board Members involved in the project.
Councillor Farrell commented that of the Working Party’s “Lessons”, the appointment of a “Critical Friend”, at paragraph (9), was one which would have made a difference to the successful implementation of the project. This person would have been able to scrutinise the contract and it was likely that this would have led to a better outcome.
In response to a question as to who drafted the contract, the Strategic Director confirmed that SODC had drafted the specification with assistance from a consultant and a lawyer. In terms of whether the Vale was confident that the specification met its requirements it was confirmed that Officers had checked the specification and had in fact suggested Agresso, as this was the financial system in use at the Vale, whilst giving those submitting tenders the opportunity to suggest a competitor, it was an open specification.
In response to a question as to whether the contract specified which version of Agresso would be implemented, the Strategic Director confirmed that the Vale had made it known that version 5.4 was in use; however the Vale did not specify a preference for 5.4 or 5.5. He advised that the contract was silent on whether it should be 5.4 or 5.5.
Councillor Tony de Vere advised the Committee that he had been involved when the Vale had introduced Agresso initially and had a “champion” type role. He considered that it was very important that a quality project manager be involved in projects to keep a close eye on what was happening. He advised that it was his belief that a project manager would have been aware of the problems with version specification, however did not consider that a member champion would have necessarily have made a difference.
One Member questioned whether Councillor Tony de Vere was confident that the proposed Waste Partnership would not go down the same route as Agresso implementation. Councillor Tony de Vere confirmed that lessons had been learned, there were quality people on the team and the same problems would not happen again.
In response to a question as to whether the Executive members considered that the Vale was the junior partner in the project, Councillor Tony de Vere advised that in negotiations and strategic decision making, he did not believe that the Vale was a junior partner. He accepted that in project management terms SODC made decisions as the lead authority.
The Strategic Director advised that the Vale and SODC were equal partners as far as the contract was concerned, however SODC had taken the lead on this project as the Vale had fewer resources.
One Member considered that it had been a mistake for the Vale to allow SODC to take the lead without ensuring that it had its own experts on board who understood the consequences for it. She stated that this was where the project had gone wrong, in that had someone understood the importance of the version specification, a clear plan could have been in place.
One Member asked whether the Executive Members present had assumed that the project management capabilities at SODC were of the standard they had come to expect of the Vale. Councillor Tony de Vere answered that there had been such an assumption and that SODC and Capita staff had been relied upon. He further stated that there had been an underestimation of the significance of specifying a particular version of Agresso, which ought to have been brought to the attention of the Board members.
One Member asked why the Vale allowed Capita to implement a system which the Vale knew nothing about and whether it was Agresso that was pushing the new software.
The Strategic Director advised that the Vale had no relationship with Agresso, and was reliant on Capita. He advised that in October 2006, Capita had been informed that Agresso were no longer supporting the implementation of version 5.4 at new sites. He stated that Capita considered it had no option other than to implement version 5.5. He advised that the Vale was not made aware of this change until February 2007, which significantly contributed to the resulting project problems. He confirmed that within the contract there was a Change Control Mechanism, which meant that Capita were required to advise of any significant changes, however Capita considered that this issue was not subject to that mechanism because the decision fell within its remit as project manager and the particular version of the software was not specified.
One Member questioned whether the Board Members present felt that the reports they received from Capita were adequate in particular, whether they provided the right information to ask the right questions. The Strategic Director advised the Committee that at the time of the Agresso implementation, there were 5 other major IT migrations, all of which were implemented successfully and based on the same management information and reporting arrangements as the Agresso project, all six projects were monitored by the Board. Agresso looked no better or worse than the other projects during the early project period.
The Strategic Director was asked what steps had been taken to improve staff morale. He confirmed that confidence was picking up. He advised that in addition to the approximately 200 recovery tasks identified, a further 100 supplementary tasks had been identified, 90% of which had now been completed. He confirmed that the recovery plan was due to be signed off next week, that the major milestones were being achieved and that it was expected that Agresso would be working at steady state shortly. He advised that the Vale had taken the lead on the recovery plan, providing training for staff and writing the Vale/SODC user manuals.
He confirmed that the system had been introduced in April 2007 and it had taken a year to achieve steady state, although it was being used as the live system in the meantime.
The Executive Members in attendance confirmed that the lessons identified within the Agresso Working Party’s report were of use and would be considered at the outset of future projects. Councillor Tony de Vere advised that the Joint Waste Management Project would benefit from the identified lessons.
The Chairman commented that the Scrutiny Committee had taken a great interest in the Waste Management Project, and suggested that it should receive a report on progress. She considered that the project would benefit from improved communication to Members so that they were able to relay information to the public.
The Scrutiny Committee wished to express their thanks to the Officers who had worked hard to ensure a successful recovery for the Agresso 5.5 implementation.
The Chairman thanked the Executive Members for their attendance.