(Please note that due
to the confidential nature of some of the information provided to
members, this item was taken at the end of the meeting and when
members of the public were asked to leave the room).
Director - Digital Transformation introduced the item. Members asked for clarification about why the
information needed to be treated as confidential. Officers replied that some of it was still in a
draft format and therefore wasn’t currently ready for public
main focus of the discussion focussed upon the ‘IT Strategy
2018 – 2023’.
- Members commented
that there were quite a lot of acronyms within the
strategy. There were also some comments
about some of the language being used within the document not being
accessible. It was suggested by a
member that if a document is to be made public officers could ask
someone who knows little about the content to see if they
understand what the document is trying to communicate. The Director - Digital Transformation said that
there is a communication strategy attached this programme and as
part of that work the strategy will be reformatted without the
acronyms and the messages will be tailored for wider
- Oversight of the
‘Future State Assessment’ programme; given the nature
of some of the information it needed to be established how scrutiny
will be carried out going forward, as it will not be appropriate to
publically publish some of the information.
- It would be confirmed
whether the Members would have access to the Programme Boards
minutes going forward. However, the
Director - Digital Transformation did offer to Members that they
would make progress reports available to the Commission.
- A Member commented
that officer’s contact details on Outlook are very often out
of date which causes various problems and delays. It was asked if this was a resource issue. It was
explained that this type of issue would be addressed as part of a
‘capabilities and deficiencies organisational
assessment’ that is to be undertaken.
- The Chair asked why
there wasn’t any mention of the role of scrutiny in the
Programme Governance Diagram (in the Programme Board’s Terms
of Reference contained in the confidential papers). Officers said this was an oversight and it would
be now be included. ACTION: Officers to
ensure that Scrutiny is specifically identified in the
- The Chair asked about
the Programme Board and why Cllr Cheney was the only elected Member
who sat on it. Officers said in response that it was right that
Cllr Cheney was a member of the board and held officers to account;
this was a key piece of work for him. Members said they
weren’t completely sure that mixing up the two roles of
Executive Member and Board Member was the correct thing to do.
Officers said that there would also be an independent third-party
sat on the board that would work as a ‘critical friend’
and provide additional strategic business and technical
assurances. Officers to confirm to
members who this is once they have been appointed and if it’s
possible they will come to the next meeting. ACTION:
Officers to provide Members with a progress up-date on the
independent third-party board member as soon as one is
- A Member suggested
that if /when all the Members are provided with new IT equipment to
replace the current IPads if there could be some additional support
provided this time.
- It was confirmed that
although the strategy is in the public domain it has not been
specifically designed for the public.
It was also confirmed that yes there will be some activity with end
users, super-users and some citizen engagement.