Agenda item

This report sets out the Council’s progress in delivering the Transformation and Communications portfolio. 

Members considered the Transformation & Communications Portfolio Holder update.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

• Councillor Miscandlon stated that the Council were currently attempting to move services online and become fully internet integrated but asked what they were doing for residents who either had no access to the internet or did not wish to use the internet, stating that he did not wish to see people left behind. Councillor Tierney stated that this was an area that was important to him, explaining that they were not doing away with the old methods of communication and service and that they were keeping the traditional routes open alongside moving to a greater online presence. He stated that the Council were not trying to move everyone online. Councillor Miscandlon agreed with this approach but that the  perception was that the Council was becoming fully internet based. He was glad for the confirmation that this was not the case as many of the older generation do not wish to move online. Councillor Tierney responded that he had a dual role as portfolio holder for IT and communications and that whenever the Council do a press release regarding this matter, they always assert that they will not be leaving people behind.
• Councillor Mason explained that there had been a lot of pressure on the local Council offices with residents calling in with all sorts of queries. He explained that they were often directed to the central number and asked what the process was from this point onwards. Councillor Tierney explained that changes had been made so that more could be done via the internet to reduce pressure on the traditional routes and that they had also introduced new call handling systems and software to help manage the way information is handled so that fewer people are needed but they can work faster and respond more quickly. Anna Goodall explained that the Council went live with My Fenland in July 2021 which brought together teams that had been customer facing under one umbrella, with the previous system involving the customer having to interpret which service they needed and then find the relevant number or email address for that service whereas the new system required no interpretation as there is now one central point of contact. She explained that as part of the process they changed the job descriptions to make them much more customer focused, eliminating single points of failure and took full advantage of the enhancements in technology and the digital process. Anna Goodall outlined the process for the panel stating that the new process involved customers phoning in via the 01354 654321 number to access the contact centre where they can then hold to get through to staff, with there now being two levels of staff within the structure, including advisors and technical officers. She explained that advisors deal with a wide range of questions and can reply to any query relating to the Council to a certain level and technical officers provide more in-depth responses as they work closely with services. She informed the panel that this freed up professional officer time and that feedback had been positive so far.
• Councillor Wicks questioned what feedback they provided to people who need assistance regarding a highly specialist area? He asked whether there was a confirmation email and asked what form of follow up there was for these types of contact? Anna Goodall explained that they respond in the manner that they were initially contacted in, with the key point being that they were avoiding customers ringing in and progress chasing as this was seen as an avoidable contact, so they try to manage customer expectations at first point of contact. She informed the panel that in cases where they do need to provide further information, they do provide timescales for a response.
• Councillor Booth stated that he felt that the performance indicator regarding the percentage of queries resolved at first point of contact was a misnomer as it only showed that the call was not passed on to another part of the Council. He felt it was a crude indicator and that it failed to give the right impression and that the indicator needed to be reviewed as he felt that it was giving a false impression. Councillor Tierney argued that it was unfair to state that it gives a false impression. He welcomed Councillor Booth suggesting a different performance indicator after the meeting and stated that it was always good to provide more information providing it was not impacting officer time. Councillor Booth stated that as the panel were setting up a task and finish group to revise KPI’s this was an area they could review. 
• Councillor Miscandlon referred to calls answered within 20 seconds had a baseline of 74.81 percent but that they had only achieved 30.3 percent and asked whether this should be a red rating rather than an amber as performance was well below target? Councillor Tierney explained that the baseline was not the target in this case due to the previous year’s figures being artificially inflated because of the Covid pandemic and having more staff available to deal with calls and the major change in structure with the My Fenland team. He informed the panel that they had set a 40 percent target as they had expected a dip in calls answered within 20 seconds with the new system and the percentage was beginning to improve now. Councillor Miscandlon agreed with Councillor Tierney’s explanation for the lower target but added that they should have made the reasons behind the rating clearer in the report. Councillor Tierney accepted that it should have been made clearer why the target for the year was 40 percent.
• Councillor Mason questioned whether it was possible to record the number of calls made that the customer ended up hanging up on before being answered? Councillor Tierney stated that they do record calls in but if customers hang up it is hard to know the reason behind this. Anna Goodall explained that there was not a KPI for this but they do record the percentage of calls handled. She informed the panel that if they identify a high abandonment level then they would investigate this as they want to understand what affects customer behaviour so that they can make improvements and that they were constantly looking at improving the system along the journey.
• Councillor Booth made the point that the green ratings had an allowance of 5 percent, with most companies not applying an allowance and that the target should take this into account as it simply lowers the target by 5 percent. He suggested that this be looked at and that there should be no tolerance level on green ratings. Councillor Tierney explained that this was the corporate way in which the Council worked and it was how the statistics were interpreted and not what tolerance they had for ratings that mattered. He stated that the information was there and that it was relatively clear and if the Overview and Scrutiny panel suggested it be reviewed at a corporate level then it could be looked at. Councillor Booth suggested that it could be added to the task and finish group.
• Councillor Booth asked what had been done to improve risk and compliance management within the ICT service? Stephen Beacher explained that with compliance the Council meets all the PSN and PCIDSS compliance ratings and that they always look out for more risks such as extra cyber risks with the Russia Ukraine conflict. Councillor Booth asked for clarification that they had not introduced a new way of looking at risk and compliance in ICT and that it was just that the day to day management of it was keeping up to speed with new and emerging threats? Stephen Beacher explained that this was down as a future project. Councillor Booth asked how confident were ICT that they have achieved compliance and whether they have had a review? Stephen Beacher responded that they were currently working with an external penetration service who would provide a review that would then be handed on to the Cabinet Office and if anything was identified that needed fixing this would be completed before the submission was sent to the PSN.
• Councillor Booth noted that new complaints data was going to be provided on the first of April and expressed his disappointment that nothing had been made available for this meeting. He asked for reassurance that from 1 April regular updates on complaint data will be received? Councillor Tierney gave his apologies that data had not been provided for the meeting and confirmed that they will be sending the reports in the future. He stated that if members were unhappy with the way it was presented then they will work to keep improving it.  
• Councillor Tierney explained that the Council had developed a lot of online forms and stated that it would be useful if the Panel could take a look and see if they could identify any issues with them and provide some feedback. Councillor Miscandlon responded that they would be happy to do so and asked whether a list of forms could be provided that they wished to be tested. Councillor Tierney agreed to provide a list of forms for testing.
• Councillor Mason stated that the panel were pleased with the progress that had been made.

The Transformation & Communications Portfolio Holder update was noted for information.