To consider the above report

Members considered approval of capital funding for the Modern Workplace project.

Councillor Hilton commented that he was aware of the frustrations of officers when they had difficulties logging into the council network. The report proposed a replacement of the desktop environment to reduce those frustrations and improve efficiency. The original total estimated project cost to fully replace the current hardware and software had been £530,000 (pilot 2018/19 - £69,000, year 1 2019/20 - £321,000, year 2 2020/21 - £140,000).

Councillor Hilton explained that the pilot, approved by CLT earlier in the year, had led to a revised specification. The estimated cost of the project had increased by £405,000. This was due to a higher specification of device being required, a smaller number of suitable devices than estimated being re-useable, Optalis now being in scope, and an increase in device cost over recent months. In addition there was a requirement to bring forward £140,000 of the 2020/21 capital funding approved at Council in February to 2019/20.  This would allow for the roll-out of all devices before 1 April 2020, when the Microsoft enterprise licence agreement was renewed; the mobile devices required a more cost effective license than the current thin clients. As well as improving system availability, replacing the current desktop infrastructure would realise significant benefits by enabling the council’s workforce to carry out duties flexibly, use new functionality such as conference/video calling and instant messaging, and provide efficiencies in terms of minimising pressure on support resources by implementing more robust and fully supported IT solutions.

Members noted that the costs included training, project management, application packages and conversion of packages. The change to the revenue budget in 2019/20 was one third of the £9000 figure in the report because by the time the project was underway there would only be four months of the financial year remaining. The depreciation period for hardware was 10 years; for software 7 years. Councillor Hilton would ask for a review period of hardware; if necessary this would require full Council approval. A rolling device replacement programme would be built into future capital budgets to ensure that the technology used by the council remained fit for purpose.

Councillor Bowden seconded the motion.

Councillor Reynolds commented that it was fair to say that the Council had fairly frequently overspent on projects, and the £405,000 was no exception to that. He had three issues with the Modern Workplace Project as it stood:

The council was proposing to borrow over ten years, which meant the equipment was expected to last for ten years. Anyone who owned a computer knew a computer did not last for ten years. The report also mentioned that current equipment had lasted for seven years and was already out of date.

The maximum warranty the council could take out on the computers was five years, which meant five years when the council would not be able to service its computers for the future so they would probably just be binned. He asked how would the council pay for it over the next five years when the equipment had been binned.

Councillor Reynolds believed that the issue came back to the philosophy of the IT department. Did the council want people to work from home? Did it want to outsource everything in the IT department, or did it want to fix things itself? The philosophy would impact on everything the council did and in speaking to the responsible officer he had not been able to get any idea of what the philosophy was. Docking stations would cost £85,000. They were lovely to have if you had the money if you had it, but the council did not have it. The council was looking at borrowing an extra £405,000 just to get the project over the line.

The report detailed that the computers would have 16GB of RAM which to a general user who was using Microsoft Word was totally excessive. Microsoft Word needed 1GB of RAM to run, not 16. It could be argued that the council was trying to future-proof its technology but this was not the case as Councillor Hilton had already said the proposal was to buy the software for seven years. New software would be needed with greater RAM or greater hard drives because the council was buying them over ten years. A better strategy for the council would be to spend less on the computers and buy them over a shorter period of time. The council would then have capital in the future to be able to reinvest in new computers and have greater flexibility when, in four or five years’ time, the computers were finished with.

Councillor Reynolds concluded that overall he did not think the Modern Workplace Project was properly thought out; it did not provide an answer to what the council needed. It did not make sense and Members should not be voting to allow it to continue in the state that it was presented.

Councillor Hill commented that he had been Lead Member when the system had been put in in some years previously. Regrettably he equally endorsed what Councillor Reynolds had said; ten years was too long to ride off an IT system. The current system was a three year write off and obviously it had been stretched well to seven years. The software would need to be upgraded throughout the ten year period as software got bigger, it got slower and needed faster processors. The security requirement would only get more rigorous. The council needed to rethink the write off period to probably a maximum of four years. It would be possible to write a software licence or a software agreement for the long term but inevitably there would be upgrades that would be required. He would love to vote the report through because having spoken to some of the officers it took them a perilously long time to log in, particularly to the email system. The officers needed an upgrade desperately but he felt the ten year write off was wrong.

Councillor Davey commented that the doubling of the budget had come out of nowhere; it seemed crazy when the council was looking at its finances. He requested more information on the procurement process. People used software in different ways; He had been given an iPad but he had to send files to his personal PC to open them up. Microsoft offered different levels, for example in his own business he could pay £2 if he only wanted email; if he wanted the full licence with the Teams aspect this cost £40 a month. He suggested packages should be bespoke per officer for what would actually be used on a day to day basis.

Councillor Bowden commented that he needed a new home computer after seven years, which he thought was good value for money for the work he had done on it. Technology was moving so fast. He loved the suggestions but the council had to live in the world that was presented to it and give the staff the correct equipment to work with. Councillor Bowden highlighted the saving over the future as Microsoft licences were going to come out in the next year. He was quite happy to use an iPad as he could load documents on Word, Excel and PDF.

Councillor Hilton highlighted that the current system did not do the job. He explained that the council borrowed over ten years and was then obligated to pay interest on the loan. There was a charge to the revenue budget called minimum revenue provision, which he believed was 7% over ten years. The debt was not necessarily linked to the equipment being purchased. The device replacement programme would be built into future capital budgets to ensure the technology was up to date.

Councillor Johnson stated that having heard the debate and the issues raised by Members, he was very happy to look at both the write off period and the depreciation. He pointed out that the proposals should be considered as part of a broader digital strategy for which work was already underway in Adult Social Care and Children’s services. To reinforce the commitment that he had given at the very start of the meeting that this was an administration that would seek to scrutinise every single penny of its spending going forward to ensure value for money and the most innovative and effective outputs, he proposed to defer the item to the next council meeting.

Councillor Hilton seconded the motion.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the item be deferred to the next meeting.