Agenda item

ICT Systems and Strategy


(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).


The 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 consumption.


The 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 audiences.


  • 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  • A Member commented that officer’s contact details on Outlook are very often out of date which causes various problems and delays.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 information.


  • 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 available


  • 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.


Supporting documents: