COMMITTEE
JOINT MEETING OF CABINET ICT AND CABINET RESOURCES
JOINT MEETING OF CABINET ICT AND CABINET RESOURCES
DATE AND TIME
THURSDAY, 19 AUGUST 2004
AT 7.00 PM
THURSDAY, 19 AUGUST 2004
AT 7.00 PM
VENUE
THE TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS,
HENDON, NW4 4BG
THE TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS,
HENDON, NW4 4BG
TO: MEMBERS OF THE CABINET ICT COMMITTEE AND CABINET RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Quorum 3)Chairman: To be appointed
Councillors:
Melvin Cohen Mike Freer
Katia David Victor Lyon
Anthony Finn Matthew Offord
Roy Goddard
Head of Committee
Democratic Services contact: Chidi Agada, tel: 020 8359 2037 Adrian Young, tel: 020 8359 2023
FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
The Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting, please telephone Chidi Agada on 020 8359 2037 or Adrian Young on 020 8359 2023. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.
Town Hall
Hendon, NW4 4BG
ORDER OF BUSINESS| Item No. | Title of Report | Page Nos. |
| 1 | APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN | – |
| 2 | ABSENCE OF MEMBERS | – |
| 3 | DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL | – |
| | INTERESTS | |
| | Report from the Cabinet Member for Performance, Partnerships and Best Value and Cabinet Member for Resources | |
| 4 | Modernising Core Systems | 1 - 9 |
| 5 | ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT | |
| 6 | MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE PRESS AND PUBLIC:- | |
| | That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act shown in respect of each item: | |
| | Exemption category | |
| | Report from the Cabinet Member for Resources | |
| 7 | Exempt Information relating to item considered in 8 & 9 public session: Modernising Core Systems | 10 - 20 |
| 8 | ANY EXEMPT ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE | - |
| | URGENT | |
| Fire / Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed porters. It is vital that you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lifts. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so. |
AGENDA ITEM: 4 Page nos. 1 - 9
Meeting Cabinet Resources CommitteeCabinet ICT Committee
Date 19 August 2004
Subject Modernising Core Systems
Report of Cabinet Member for Resources
Cabinet Member for Performance, Partnerships and Best Value
Summary This report provides a summary of the Modernising Core Systems
Programme, including the business case and the resources required to support the project. The report proposes that the Council enter into a contract with a suitably qualified provider to implement and provide a managed service for the system.
Officer Contributors Nick Walkley Assistant Chief ExecutiveClive Medlam Borough Treasurer
Paul Ketchley Head of Human Resources
Status (public or exempt) Public (with separate exempt section)
Wards affected Not applicable
Enclosures • Appendix A: Programme Governance Structure and Roles and
(CIRCULATED SEPERATELY) Responsibilities Definition)
Appendix B: Business Case
Appendix C: Project Plan- Task Summary
Appendix D: Risk Protocol for the MCS Programme
Appendix E: Current Risk Register
For decision by Cabinet Resources Committee & Cabinet ICT Committee
Function of Executive
Reason for urgency / exemption Not applicable
from call-in (if appropriate)
Contact for further information: Nick Griffin 020 8359 7267
1. 
RECOMMENDATIONS Cabinet Resources Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS Cabinet Resources Committee1.1 That the changes to the approved revenue and capital budgets, as contained in para 5.4.1 of the exempt report be approved.
1.2 That a contingency sum of £ 1.254 million be set aside for the project, and that the
Assistant Chief Executive with the Borough Treasurer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and Cabinet Member for Performance, Partnerships and Best Value, be authorised to release contingency funds, subject to a case having been approved by the Modernising Core Systems Programme Board.
1.3 That, wherever possible, implementation be expedited, and the Heads of Service concerned be instructed to report on the implications, and that it be noted that these may require funding from balances (paragraph 5.7).
1.4 That it be noted that the direct costs of the procurement process (as set out in para 5.4.1 of the exempt report) - will be met from revenue balances, unless it proves possible, in
due course to capitalise these costs and that the Borough Treasurer be instructed to report on this aspect to a future meeting.
Cabinet ICT Committee
1.5 That subject to the approval by the Cabinet Resources Committee of the financial implications as set out above and in the exempt report, the Assistant Chief Executive be instructed to accept the tender of the contractor detailed in the Exempt Report, subject to commercial considerations and approval of all legal documentation by the Borough Solicitor, to deliver and implement the Modernising Core Systems Programme and provide a managed service for five years, with an option to extend for a further three years subject to performance, following implementation of the core elements of the new system.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS
2.1 Cabinet ICT Committee, 26 June 2003, Approval of IS Recovery Plan
2.2 Cabinet ICT Committee, 5 May 2004, Modernising Core Systems
2.3 Cabinet Resources Committee, 24 July 2003, Modernisation of Payroll Service
2.4 Cabinet ICT Committee, 19 March 2002, Enterprising Resource Planning
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 The Modernising Core Systems Programme is fundamental to the delivery of the
corporate priorities, as laid out in the Corporate Plan 2004/5-2007/8. It is particularly
significant to the attainment of the priority of delivering ‘a better council for a better Barnet’ through investment in modern systems. The programme also supports the delivery of the majority of objectives set out in the Information Systems, Borough Treasurer’s and Human Resources Performance Management Plans.
3.2 On 1st June 2004, Cabinet agreed the findings of the Financial Management Best Value
Review. The review recognised the overarching importance that replacing the core financial systems had to delivery of improvements in corporate financial management.
3.3 The Council’s Procurement Strategy aims to support the delivery of the Corporate Planby enabling the procurement of best value goods and services. The MCS Programme has been delivered in accordance with that strategy.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
4.1 A large scale programme involving major systems implementation and business process
change carries with it significant risks.
4.2 The MCS Programme Board, working with Internal Audit, has adopted a risk tolerant approach to the project. This was agreed on the basis that:
A risk adverse approach would mean that the risk mitigation would hinder or even prevent implementation
In a programme of this scale and complexity identification and mitigation of all risks in advance might not, given the dynamic nature of the work, be possible.
Appropriate structures can be put in place to identify and manage risk
4.3 The MCS Programme Board also recognised that there is a significant risk in the
authority doing nothing. In particular:
On going references in external audit letters to the weaknesses in existing systems and subsequent impact on the CPA use of resources score
Criticism in the last CPA inspection likely to be repeated
Qualification of BVPIs
Exposure to further risk of payroll fraud
General difficulties in providing effective budget monitoring
4.4 The MCS Programme has adopted the following approach to managing risk:
Involvement of Internal Audit on an on going basis.
The Chief Internal Auditor sits on the Programme Board
An agreed risk protocol for the MCS Programme (set out in Appendix D)
Review of the Risk Register and Project Plan by the external auditor
Involvement of the 4P’s Gateway Review process at key stages, to provide external, expert review
Agreement to return at Project Milestones to Audit and Central Services OSC
The use of external partner expertise via the HBS partnership, established in 2001, to advise LBBarnet and provide appropriate benchmarks
4.5 A copy of the current risk register, which is reviewed weekly by the MCS Project
Manager and Internal Audit, as per the Risk Protocol, is attached as Appendix E.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
5.1 This report is being finalised at a point where negotiations with potential suppliers are not
concluded. The detailed financial implications will be circulated in an update of the public report and a separate exempt report, as appropriate.
5.2 Ahead of receiving the exempt report, it is worth outlining the different cost elements
associated with this project so that Cabinet Resources Committee is aware of the additional information that will be circulated:
One off Costs
• Initial licence charge for the system System implementation – this will include establishing the managed service, data transfer, and interfaces with non-integrated systems
Consultancy advice on specification, procurement, negotiation and
implementation
Additional staff resources to implement the system
Archiving data on legacy systems
Ongoing Costs
Annual software licence
Managed service
Internal system support and development
Benefits
Switching off legacy systems
Business efficiencies – this will predominantly be staffing reductions
Procurement savings
5.3 Delivery of the system on budget and achieving the financial benefits is dependent on an
all round successful implementation of the new system. Problems with implementation will impact on budgeted costs and benefits in the following ways:
A delay in going live would delay the switching off of legacy systems, with the resulting cost of paying for two sets of systems longer than necessary
Failure to deliver the required specification will reduce the extent of business change and thereby the level of business efficiencies possible
The supplier will be implementing the specification set out in the invitation to negotiate, as subsequently amended through the scoping and negotiation phases. If aspects of the required business scope are omitted from the agreed specification, the cost of adding these after the contract has been signed could be greater than if they were included in the agreed specification
The organisation is expected to experience a period of lower internal performance from the day the system goes live, as it comes to terms with new ways of working. The longer this period continues, the longer the need to have resources devoted to support and training, and the longer it takes to drive out the efficiency savings from the base budget. Experience of the SWIFT
implementation shows that attempting to manage the period of reduced performance with inadequate resources is a false economy.
implementation shows that attempting to manage the period of reduced performance with inadequate resources is a false economy.
5.4 The above scenarios are quite real, particularly given the tight timetable that the project
is being run to. However, to have simply extended the procurement and negotiation stages in order to minimise the above financial risks would itself have resulted in additional costs of the various internal and external resources engaged in the project. In the light of these financial risks it is considered appropriate to have contingency provisions within the budget for the project, to be managed by the Borough Treasurer.
Capital & Revenue Budget Implications
5.5 The capital budget for the replacement system approved by Council on 2 March 2004 is £2.5m. This was an estimate based on the “best of breed” solution for finance, which
was consistent with the approach in reports previously submitted to Cabinet ICT Committee. As this report advises, and as a result of the procurement exercise, an integrated solution is now proposed and it is currently envisaged that the additional reports referred to in paragraph 5.1 will be seeking a significant increase in the capital budget, which will include contingencies referred to in paragraph 5.4.5.6 In respect of the revenue budget, the last bullet point of paragraph 5.3 highlights the
problems in forecasting the implications after the target go-live date of 1 April 2005. However, assumptions for the 2005/6 budget will be set out in the reports being circulated separately, which can be updated over the coming months and before the 2005/6 Council Budget is finalised.
5.7 Implications for the current year’s revenue budget will centre on the additional staff
resources required to achieve a successful implementation. Within reason, the more resources that can be devoted to this project (with funding being provided for back-filling key posts), the more likelihood there is of achieving a successful implementation and ongoing base budget reductions. The Cabinet Resources Committee will, however, have to appreciate that these unbudgeted resources would have to come from balances.
5.8 Changes to the Local Authority Code of Accounting Practice may impact on the extent to which one-off costs can be capitalised and further discussion on this may be necessary with the external auditor.
6. COMMENTS, IF ANY, OF THE COUNCIL’S STATUTORY OFFICERS (HEAD OF PAID SERVICE, CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, MONITORING OFFICER)
7. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
7.1 As reported to the ICT Cabinet on the 5th May 2005, the MCS Programme entails
replacement of the Core Financials and HR/Payroll systems. Such a replacement has been identified as a priority in the Corporate Plan. Replacement of the existing systems is required to address audit concerns and to provide the extra management information to both support the Council’s performance management system and its improvement plans.
7.2 The MCS Programme has had in place since its inception a programme governance structure which is fully compliant with Prince II Project Management methodology (see 7.5). This is designed to control the programme activities and all individuals associated with it, from the procurement to implementation stages and up to go live. See Appendix A (Programme Governance Structure and Roles and Responsibilities Definition)
7.3 Business case
The business case that appears at Appendix B sets out the reasons for the project and the justification for undertaking it, based on the estimated costs, risks, benefits and savings. The exempt report sets out the financial evaluation of the Best and Final Offers (BAFO’s) from the three potential suppliers, together with a comprehensive assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the suppliers.
7.4 Procurement Process
7.4.1 The cost of the supplies and services that would be required to deliver the CoreFinancials and Payroll Systems was estimated to be well in excess of £150k, which meant that the procurement of the systems had to be conducted under a European Union (EU) compliant tender process and in line with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.
The Council, therefore, had two procurement options. A full EU tender procedure or utilisation of a pre-tendered ‘framework’ arrangement such as S-Cat from O.G.C. buying solutions, an Executive Agency of the Office of the Government of Commerce. Each option had advantages and disadvantages for the Council. Following consideration of
the options, the Programme Board of 19th December 2003 agreed that the projects should be subject to a full EU tender process, using the negotiated procedure.
7.4.2 The EU Negotiated route was decided upon in order to ensure the greatest degree of procurement transparency and to generate strong competition between the prospective suppliers. A tendering timetable was agreed to reflect the procurement regulations and an OJEU tender notice was issued on the 15th January 2004.
7.4.3 The Programme Board felt it was imperative that for a project with such major investment and change implications for the Council, it did not form any early views on the preferred option until the market has responded. It therefore went to the market on the basis of three options open to potential suppliers
Option 1: Core Financials without an Integrated Payroll / HR Module
Option 2: Core Financials with an Integrated Payroll / HR Module
Option 3: Provision of a Payroll / HR Bureau Service
7.4.4 For Options 1 & 2, at this stage the Council had no firm view as to whether it would be to its advantage to manage the implementation system itself, or to procure a fully managed service that the supplier would be entirely responsible for managing. The Council had experience of both environments and decided to encourage proposals from suppliers that best met the Council’s overall aims and demonstrated best value.
For Option 3, the Council was looking for a managed bureau service, delivered from the supplier’s own premises. The supplier would be responsible for hosting, supporting and maintaining the IT systems (both application software and hardware infrastructure) and for providing a connection to the Council network. The Council would expect to be able to maintain employee master file data and perform day-to-day administration, but the supplier would be expected to manage and maintain interfaces.
7.4.5 Following the issue of the OJEU notice, 74 expressions of interest were received from
suppliers, all of whom were sent a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ). A list of companies expressing an interest in the contract is included in the Exempt Report. The purpose of the (PQQ) was to select a shortlist of suppliers that would be invited to tender
for the three options. The questionnaire consisted of a number of pass/fail eligibility questions for key risks areas and a weighted pointed system based on suppliers
technical resources, financial status, approach to health and safety and equalities policies. The PQQ evaluation weightings were developed by the Strategic Procurement Team and agreed by the members of the project team, with representation from the key services affected and from Internal Audit.
7.4.6 28 completed PQQs were received from a range of suppliers. Some expressed an interest in all three contract options, while other specialised suppliers (Best of Breed) were only interested in individual options. All suppliers were evaluated against the matrix (See Exempt Report).7.4.7 On the 8th March 2004 a special Programme Board meeting agreed a shortlist of seven suppliers to be invited to tender based on the evaluation matrix. The Board agreed that the integration verses Best of Breed decision was a strategic decision that should not be made until after the tenders had been received. To ensure compliance with Contract Procedure Rules, a minimum of five suppliers were invited for each option. Due to the quality of the submissions, six providers were invited for Option 3 (See Exempt Report).
7.4.8 A comprehensive Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) document had been developed by staff from Finance, HR/Payroll, IS and the Strategic Procurement Team. The ITN included details of the evaluation criteria that would be applied to the submissions for the negotiation stage of the tendering process. An evaluation matrix was developed by the Strategic Procurement Team (SPT) with the involvement of the key service areas and Internal Audit. The Programme Board then agreed the scoring and weighting system to be applied to the criteria.
7.4.9 The ITN was issued to the short listed suppliers on 10th March 2004. As part of the
tender process, suppliers were invited to a question and answer session with core members of the Project Team. The objective was to provide guidance and clarity to
suppliers in preparing their response to the ITN. This was fully documented by the Strategic Procurement Team.
7.4.10 Tender responses were received on the 31st March 2004. Three submissions were received for Option1, five for Option 2 and four For Option 3. An evaluation of tender submissions against an evaluation matrix agreed by the MCS Programme Board was conducted. Each evaluator’s assessment and scoring was then verified by a second
person. In addition, all suppliers attended a presentation session, giving them the opportunity to explain their bid and giving the Council the opportunity to raise any points of clarification around the ITN submission.
7.4.11 The results of the evaluation process were presented to the Programme Board on the 21st April 2004. The Board was disappointed that the response to Option 1 had been poor with no Best of Breed finance providers bidding for this option. The market response thus played a major role in informing the decision process. The Board had to determine whether the Council should opt for two solutions (i.e. Finance and HR/Payroll) or an integrated solution and, having made that decision, which suppliers should be
shortlisted for the next stage of the tendering process. Given the importance of the decision, the Programme Board referred the matter to the Directors’ Group.
7.4.12 Directors’ Group advised in favour of an integrated solution, principally because such a solution could offer significant organisational benefits in providing integrated service delivery within Barnet.
7.4.13 At the Programme Board on the 5th of May 2004, the Board considered the results of the ITN evaluation (See Exempt Report), as well as the advice of the Director’s Group, and approved a shortlist of 3 potential suppliers. The decision was based on the relative scoring of the prospective suppliers ITN submissions and their track record of experience in such implementations. Those shortlisted were to negotiate on the basis of a managed service offering: given this is what they had expressed a preference for, their
experience in other authorities and the lack of skill within Barnet to manage such a
solution.7.4.14 Three rounds of detailed negotiations were arranged with each of the shortlisted suppliers. In parallel with this activity a number of additional processes and evaluation mechanisms were put in place, namely:
Scoping Workshops (for each aspect and discipline of the Project)
Reference site visits
Technical References
Demonstrations
7.4.15 The above engagements with the suppliers represented a significant increase in the interaction of the Council as a whole with the prospective suppliers and the MCS project. The Project has been very diligent in ensuring that feedback from all of the attendees at these sessions has been incorporated into the supplier appraisals and informed the short listing decision.
7.4.16 The main purpose of the above was to provide input to the negotiation process, as well as serving to identify the scope and deliverables to the project, with clarification as to the parties’ roles and responsibilities in achieving such delivery. The main objectives of defining scope through the negotiation process can be summarised as:
Test each party’s understanding of the project (and any assumptions made)
Define the various components of the project and associated phasing
Negotiate and agree the project content and associated costs
Negotiate the commercial arrangements to the project, based on a reasonably
defined project scope (within the time constraints allowed for such activity).
defined project scope (within the time constraints allowed for such activity).
7.4.17 The further objective of the “scoping” work was to arrive at fixed price proposals for the project, based on maintaining the project scope boundaries. The negotiation rounds therefore focused on the following aspects:
The degree to which each tendered solution met the Council’s stated functional/business requirements
Clarity of roles and responsibilities in the delivery of the project
Evaluation of technical issues
Detailed negotiation around pricing, once the project scope had been determined
Detailed negotiation around contractual matters, including software license arrangements
7.4.18 The detailed outputs from the negotiations and the process undertaken during the final evaluation of short listed tenders to determine the selection of the “Preferred Supplier” are included in the Exempt Report.
7.5 Project Plan
7.5.1 A project plan, fully compliant with Prince II Project Management methodology, has been in place since the outset of the MCS Programme. Prince II is the recognised project control methodology whose objective is to ensure that “Projects are progressed in a controlled and rigid manner, with agreed milestones whereby the Project can be assessed for performance against the original stated objectives including performance against budget.”
The MCS Programme uses formats and controls established and monitored by the IS Programme Office.
7.5.2 The project plan is reviewed weekly by the relevant teams, twice monthly by the Project Board and reported on monthly to the Programme Board. Appendix C provides a summary of the key tasks in the project plan.7.6 Implementation
7.6.1 The current project plan for implementing the new system is built around a go live date of April 2005. An April start date has a number of advantages which relate to the benefits of beginning a new financial year using the new finance system, with appropriately revised budget and coding structures. As part of the complex supplier appraisal and negotiation phase the ability of suppliers to achieve an April 05 go live has been a fundamental driving force in the appraisal process. However, this is a very tight and ambitious implementation timetable.
7.6.2 To manage this risk the suppliers are being asked to set out their approach to delivering key modules of the system by April 2005, with a schedule for phasing other modules and functions beyond that date. Negotiations have also required suppliers to cost for project support which extends beyond the intended go live dates, to allow Barnet to quantify and minimise the risks of cost over-run. The MCS Programme Board has also agreed to review the implementation date at key milestones to ensure that risks presented by rapid
implementation do not begin to outweigh the benefits from such an implementation.
7.6.3 The implementation of a new project will have dramatic effects on the organisation, not only in work load requirements up to and after go live, but also when go live occurs. It is reasonable to consider that the authority will suffer a degree of reduced performance, due to changes in working practises and the demands made on persons by the new system. For a period after go live, as the organisation recovers from this, there will be significant short term failings i.e. BVPI8 (time taken to pay invoices). These risks will be addressed through the ongoing maintenance and review of the risk register and appropriate mitigation action being taken.
8. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
Project Initiation Document Ref: 011-CF-DOC
Quality Criteria for Project Ref: 040-CF-Org&Plan-DOC
Documents for Gateway Review Team.Doc Ref: 030-CF-Rep&Rev-DOC
Procurement Route 002-CF-DOC
ITN MCS V1a Ref: 030-CF-Rep&Rev-DOC
Finance Resource Approach.doc Ref: Finance Resource Approach.doc
Latest Project Plan: MCS (combined) 250604 V0a.MPP
MO: JEL BT: CM
Appendix A – Modernising Core Systems
Programme Board, 2 July and Cabinet
Resources Committee, 8 July 2004
Resource Descriptions, Role Definitionsand Structures
Prepared for: Programme Sponsor – N Walkley
Programme Board
Cabinet Resources
Author: M Webber
Document Control| Document Description | Resource Roles & Responsibilities for the MCS Project Phase 1 | |||
| Project Name | MCS | |||
| Client | LBB | |||
| Reference | 017-MCS-REP | |||
| Version | V1 | |||
| Date Created | 28 June 2004 | |||
| Status | Issued | |||
| Filename | C:\DOCUME~1\CHIDIL~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\APPENDIX A .Doc | |||
| Template | ||||
| Authorisation | Name | Signature | Date | |
| Prepared By: | M Webber | | 23/06/04 | |
| Checked By | | | | |
| Distribution List | Name | Date Distributed | ||
| | N Walkley | 23/06/04 | ||
Version Control
| Version number | Date | Author | Reason for New Version |
| V1 | 23/06/04 | Webber | New Issue |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Table Of ContentsAppendix A – Modernising Core Systems Programme Board, 2 July and
Cabinet Resources Committee, 8 July 2004........................................... 1
Resource Descriptions, Role Definitions and Structures....................... 1
Table Of Contents................................................................................................................. 2
1 Introduction...................................................................................... 1
2 Senior Management Resources................................................... 1
2.1 Project Sponsor – Nick Walkley................................................................... 1
2.2 Programme Director – Nick Griffin ............................................................. 1
2.3 Process Owner.............................................................................. 2
2.4 Service Champions....................................................................... 3
2.5 IT Strategy Owner.......................................................................... 4
2.6 Council Members’ Representative............................................................... 4
3 Project Team Roles................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Supplier Project Manager (System Delivery) – Senior Supplier............. 5
3.2 Client Project Manager................................................................................... 5
3.3 Change Management Consultant (TBC).......................................................... 6
3.4 Systems Consultant / Programme Manager..................................................... 7
3.5 Business Experts................................................................................................................................ 8
3.6 Business Internal Auditor.............................................................................. 8
3.7 IT Specialist ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.8 Corporate Procurement Specialist............................................................... 9
3.9 Communication Specialist......................................................................... 10
3.10 IS Programme Office........................................................................................ 10
3.11 Administrators.................................................................................................... 10
1 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to define the Current Roles and responsibilities of individuals associated directly with the Modernising Core Systems (MCS) Project.2 Senior Management Resources
2.1 Project Sponsor – Nick Walkley
The project sponsor directly communicates the organisation’s long-term goals and visions. The project sponsor:
Is the ultimate owner of the project and has decision-making power in the fulfilment of the primary responsibilities, as outlined for the Project Board members
Maintains the final authority to set priorities, approve scope, and settle organisation-wide issues
Promotes the project throughout the organisation. Where conflicts exist in the completion of these responsibilities, the sponsor is empowered to negotiate and promote a solution.
Has final budget authority
The project sponsor must have:
An executive-level presence within Barnet
A clear vision of the organisation’s goals and how the project aligns with those.
The ability to make critical decisions under significant time pressures
Strong leadership skills and effective negotiation skills
A proven record of being proactively involved with organisational issues
The ability to maintain good communication skills.
2.2 Programme Director – Nick Griffin
The Programme Director will have direct, overall control of the programme implementation.
The programme director is responsible for:
Establishing the Project
