OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
Product:
Full Business Case - Public Contact
Version:
v1 00 – External Publication
Date:
03/07/2015
Author:
Public Contact Project Team
Owner:
Assistant Chief Constable Michelle Dunn
Approval to Proceed
Name
Role
Date
ACC Dunn
SRO
03/07/2015
Operational Support Programme Board
Development Body
Change Portfolio Delivery Board
Recommending Body
Joint Chief Officer Board
Agreement Body
Strategic Alliance Summit
Approval Body
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
1
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2
1
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5
2
Purpose ................................................................................................................... 18
3
Strategic Case ......................................................................................................... 21
4
Economic Case ....................................................................................................... 52
5
Commercial Case .................................................................................................... 91
6
Financial Case ......................................................................................................... 98
7
Management Case ................................................................................................ 110
8
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 128
Tables
Table 1: Assessment of locations against criteria .................................................................. 8
Table 2: Costs and savings as a result of collaborated TOM (including cashable, potentially
cashable and non-cashable savings) .................................................................................. 11
Table 3: Cashable and potentially cashable budget savings (£m, 15/16 prices) .................. 11
Table 4: Indicative Public Contact funding required from each force ................................... 13
Table 5: Critical path activities ............................................................................................. 16
Table 6: Baseline movements from TOM to FBC (excluding Athena) .................................. 26
Table 7: Project objectives and definition ............................................................................ 30
Table 8: 2015/16 Budget to deliver public contact services across three forces (£m, 2015/16
prices) ................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 9: Current Public Contact budgets split vs NRE......................................................... 31
Table 10: Current FTE numbers across three forces according to 2015/16 budget ............. 31
Table 11: Current call volumes and performance metrics across three forces ..................... 32
Table 12: General Athena-related assumptions .................................................................. 35
Table 13: Baseline (before collaboration) FTEs including Athena ....................................... 36
Table 14: Impact of Athena on Public Contact baseline by year .......................................... 37
Table 15: Degree of alignment across three forces ............................................................. 39
Table 16: Changes needed and key considerations to meet objectives .............................. 40
Table 17: Athena interdependencies and interfaces ............................................................ 42
Table 18: Dependencies and other considerations.............................................................. 43
Table 19: Functions in scope for Public Contact.................................................................. 46
Table 20: Definition of operating model layers..................................................................... 47
Table 21: Key project benefits ............................................................................................. 48
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
2
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
Table 22: Top project risks .................................................................................................. 49
Table 23: Critical Success Factors and definitions .............................................................. 53
Table 24: Key features of Public Contact TOM.................................................................... 55
Table 25: List of detailed TOM design documents............................................................... 55
Table 26: Functionality of Public Contact TOM.................................................................... 57
Table 27: TOM ICT implementation and operating costs ..................................................... 62
Table 28: FTE changes in TOM by role ............................................................................... 63
Table 29: FTE requirements for TOM.................................................................................. 64
Table 30: Indicative function staff / officer costs .................................................................. 65
Table 31: Downstream savings ........................................................................................... 66
Table 32: Approach to TOM design and review................................................................... 67
Table 33: Savings as a result of collaborated TOM (including potentially cashable and noncashable savings) ............................................................................................................... 68
Table 34: Risk difference between single site and 2 mirrored sites ..................................... 69
Table 35: Assessment of locations against criteria .............................................................. 71
Table 36: Workstations required for TOM at implementation ............................................... 72
Table 37: Estates costs and savings ................................................................................... 73
Table 38: Profiled costs and benefits .................................................................................. 78
Table 39: Potential future initiatives..................................................................................... 80
Table 40: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with increased Athena scope ........................ 82
Table 41: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different Athena volume and AHT
assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 83
Table 42: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different channel shift assumptions ........ 84
Table 43: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with a 4-on-4-off, 12 hour shift pattern .......... 84
Table 44: NPV and payback with different go-live assumptions .......................................... 85
Table 45: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different vacancy factor assumptions ..... 86
Table 46: Impact of scenarios on benefits, NPV and payback ............................................. 88
Table 47: Critical Success Factors and definitions .............................................................. 88
Table 48: ICT change requirements .................................................................................... 92
Table 49: Potential for risk transfer...................................................................................... 94
Table 50: ICT procurements approach ................................................................................ 96
Table 51: Impact of Athena on affordability baseline ........................................................... 99
Table 52: Cashable and non-cashable savings ................................................................. 100
Table 53: Collaborated TOM costs against Public Contact budget .................................... 101
Table 54: Public Contact costs with different vacancy factors (£m, including inflation) ...... 102
Table 55: Best and worst case affordability of other scenarios .......................................... 103
Table 56: Financial Case payback .................................................................................... 105
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
3
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
Table 57: Funding split by 2015/16 Net Revenue Expenditure .......................................... 106
Table 58: Operating costs and savings for each force (15/16 prices) ................................ 107
Table 59: Indicative project funding required from each force ........................................... 108
Table 60: Critical path activities ......................................................................................... 115
Table 61: Management of dependencies .......................................................................... 115
Table 62: High level Implementation Team roles and responsibilities ................................ 117
Table 63: Project risk management process ..................................................................... 118
Table 64: Top 5 project risks and mitigations .................................................................... 120
Table 65: Benefits, owners and measures ........................................................................ 122
Table 66: 'Drops' of financial benefits ................................................................................ 124
Table 67: Special adviser requirements for Public Contact ............................................... 125
Table 68: FBC Appendices ............................................................................................... 128
Figures
Figure 1: Public Contact TOM ............................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Implementation plan ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Implementation team structure ............................................................................. 16
Figure 4: Athena workshops approach ................................................................................ 25
Figure 5: Breakdown of Athena uplift .................................................................................. 38
Figure 6: Public Contact TOM ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 7: Level 0 process .................................................................................................... 59
Figure 8: ICT Solution Concept Design ............................................................................... 61
Figure 9: TOM organisation structure .................................................................................. 64
Figure 10: Implementation Plan .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 11: Profile of costs and savings ................................................................................ 78
Figure 12: Athena-inclusive baseline with sideways and local policing demand .................. 82
Figure 13: Impact of scenarios on end-state annual costs ................................................... 87
Figure 14: ICT solution concept design ............................................................................... 92
Figure 15: Public Contact Collaboration Board escalation route ........................................ 111
Figure 16: Implementation Plan ........................................................................................ 114
Figure 17: Implementation team structure ......................................................................... 117
Figure 18: Benefits map .................................................................................................... 122
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
4
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Full Business Case (FBC) sets out the key approvals required from Strategic
Alliance CCs and PCCs for the Public Contact Collaboration Project to move into the
implementation phase.
The main purpose of the FBC is to provide key decision makers with enough
information to decide whether or not a single collaborated Public Contact function
should be established, to support Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire
forces and, if so, what the operating model for this function should be in order to best
serve the needs of the public and enable our frontline workforce.
To that end, it presents recommendations on key decision areas for approval by Joint
Chief Officer Board (JCOB) and Strategic Alliance Summit (SAS). The most critical
decision areas focus on:


The suitability of the proposed Target Operating Model and the benefits it is
expected to deliver;
The locations out of which the collaborated function will operate.
To enable these decisions to be made, the FBC will:

Provide an update on the financial impact of Public Contact collaboration on
each of the BCH forces;
Present the proposed implementation plan to deliver the TOM, including the
approach to procure required services to support implementation;

The Public Contact collaboration project provides business synergy and fit with
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Police and Crime Plans as well as
Central Government and Home Office policies:
Collaborative Focus – Collaboration provides an opportunity for forces to reduce
costs whilst minimising the impact upon the ‘frontline’, enabling greater economies
of scale, whilst seeking to maintain performance and service delivery standards.
 More for Less –The Public Contact Project supports the achievement of the
budget cuts driven by The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2015/16 and
sets the forces up to deal with predicted austerity measures through to 2020,
whilst helping to protect frontline services by ensuring that demand is managed as
effectively as possible at the point of contact.
 Digital by Default –The integrated model emphasises the need for digitally
enabled public services, with increased online access and self-service to provide
an improved citizen experience, whilst reducing demand on police resources.
 Delivery of Athena – Collaboration incorporates the Athena Investigations
Management Unit within its design, actively drives alignment between the two
initiatives to reduce delivery risk and mitigates the impact of the increase in
staffing required to deliver Athena capability.

a)
The introduction of an IMU into the Public Contact function will introduce an
uplift in cost in Public Contact, which will be offset by efficiencies and
savings in downstream policing. The uplift in cost is estimated at £2.4m
annually and is reflected in the baseline on which collaboration estimates
savings will be made (delivery of Athena and justification of its costs and
benefits are not within Public Contact Collaboration Project scope). If the
cost uplift to deliver Athena is not affordable, decisions will have to be made
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
5
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
b)
at a strategic level with regards to the extent to which the three forces will
comply with agreed Athena service standards;
The impact of the cost uplift to deliver Athena within the Public Contact
function has been mitigated by decisions made at a strategic level with
regards to the extent to which the three forces will comply with proposed
Athena service standards. This represents a change from original Athena
assumptions of a fully centralised IMU within Public Contact, introducing risk
to the Athena Programme and Public Contact Collaboration:
i)
Increased risk that changes in Athena design assumptions will
impact Public Contact design work and planned timescales;
ii) New risks that activity assumed to be completed by Local Policing
and other functions cannot be completed in these functions and
Public Contact is required to manage this activity;
iii) New risks to Local Policing, that they will be unable to meet
performance targets due to new Athena requirements.
c)
These risks would apply with or without collaboration; collaboration provides
an opportunity to more effectively mitigate and manage the risks. Public
Contact and Athena will continue to work closely together to refine future
cost estimates and ensure activities are fully aligned and in lock-step as they
proceed through implementation.
BCH cannot achieve these business strategies without substantial change in the way it
delivers the Public Contact function. Developing a demand-driven Target Operating
Model allows the organisation to understand the best way to meet the requirements
driven by these strategies. It will also allow the forces to address current underresourcing issues that impact achievement of some performance targets, enhancing
the quality of the service through increased self-service, better risk analysis and
improved data management.
Public Contact Objectives and Critical Success Factors
The key objectives of the Public Contact Project are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To effectively manage operational risk
To deliver a high level of public and victim centred services
To deliver up to 30% savings
To create a healthy culture for staff with continuous improvement
In order to achieve these objectives, the solution must therefore satisfy the following
critical success factors:








Efficient and effective common business processes
Appropriately skilled, empowered and supported staff
Industry standard and fit-for-purpose technology
Enables channel shift
Strategic and regulatory alignment
Fit-for-purpose performance framework
Scalability potential
Ease and speed of delivery
The Target Operating Model (TOM):
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
6
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Sets out the blueprint for future state of collaborated BCH Public Contact
operations;
Establishes the key capabilities and functions within the future model;
Provides the steer for the next level of detailed process and organisation
design that will define how and who will deliver the capabilities articulated
within the TOM.
Overview of TOM
Figure 1, breaks down the key functional areas within the Public Contact TOM
(Manage Contact, Manage Process and Support Functions), and the main
responsibilities within each functional area.
Figure 1: Public Contact TOM
This overview is supplemented by:



a)
b)

Detailed process maps;
Modelling of the demand volumes managed by each function within the TOM
with average handle times for the key activities to assess staff requirements;
A draft template balanced scorecard performance framework, including
agreement of critical KPIs:
90% of 999 calls will be answered in 10 seconds;
80% of 101 calls will be answered in 30 seconds.
An ICT solution concept (including key changes required to existing ICT) to
meet the TOM requirements, which is critical enable organisational change;
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
7
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Police staff and officer full-time equivalents (FTE) requirement (including
grading and assessment of shift premia) to deliver the TOM;
An assessment of down-stream savings that the TOM enables in Local
Policing through a focus on resolving more incidents and investigations within
Public Contact and avoiding unnecessary deployments.
This design has followed a rigorous review cycle through a number of key operational
practitioners.
Location and Configuration
A key element of the TOM is the locations from which the new collaborative functions
will operate. The analysis to underpin this decision focuses on:


Whether or not the project should implement a single site option or two
mirrored sites option (configuration);
What is (are) the preferred location(s).
The key driver behind the decision on configuration is operational risk:



Although a single site option presents potential for some increased savings
through fewer supervisors and release of existing estate, there is higher
implementation risk to delivering a single site option directly following FBC.
The biggest differentiator between the two configurations is the ability to
mitigate resilience risk, which is far lower for a two-mirrored site option.
Implementing a two-mirrored site option post-FBC does not preclude an
eventual transition to a single site and realisation of further savings.
As a consequence, the recommended configuration to be implemented is a twomirrored site option.
Five locations were considered as potential sites for future collaborative Public Contact
services for the FBC. These locations were:





Bedfordshire Police Headquarters (HQ) at Kempston
Cambridgeshire Police HQ at Hinchingbrooke
Copse Court at Peterborough
Hertfordshire Police HQ at Welwyn Garden City
The empty Area Fire Control Centre at Waterbeach
Two key decision criteria used in order to assess the suitability of each location for
collaborative Public Contact: operational risk and scalability.
The results of this assessment are presented in Table 1 (red represents a poor
assessment against the criteria; green represents a positive assessment; amber is
neutral).
Table 1: Assessment of locations against criteria
Location
Criteria
Assessment
Operational Risk
Bedfordshire Police HQ
Scalability
Operational Risk
Cambridgeshire Police HQ
Scalability
Copse Court
Operational Risk
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
8
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Location
Criteria
Assessment
Scalability
Operational Risk
Hertfordshire Police HQ
Scalability
Operational Risk
Waterbeach
Scalability
As a result of this assessment, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire HQs were identified
as the most suitable locations for collaborated public contact services. These are the
only locations that, combined, provide sufficient space to house the collaborated
function without substantial disruption to a number of other functions.
The Project Team recommends that approval is given to implement the two
mirrored site option at Welwyn Garden City and Hinchingbrooke.
Costs and Benefits of Public Contact Collaborated TOM
The costs and benefits of the Public Contact TOM and proposed implementation
approach can be considered against each of the four project objectives
Objective 1: To effectively manage operational risk
The TOM is focused on increasing operational resilience and responsiveness arising
from collaborating a mission critical high-volume operational support function both in
the long-term and through implementation:




New processes (including introduction of a single approach to THRIIVES) and
ICT will drive a reduction in the number of information errors recorded in
systems and improve coherency and comparability in records across the
three forces.
New channels and demand-driven staffing will improve demand management
and reduce the risk and impact of under-resourcing, which is currently
resulting in missed performance targets within BCH.
A conscious drive to increase resourcing through implementation will mitigate
risk of disruptions to operations during this period of change. It is noted,
however, that significant risk will remain through this period – particularly with
regards to the forces’ ability to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of staff in
this period – which could impact the ability to meet performance targets with
regards to recording and non-emergency calls in the short-term.
The implementation plan also includes checkpoints at key milestones so that
progress and assumptions can be reviewed and updated, ensuring that the
final delivered TOM is flexible to any changed requirements, whilst limiting the
disruption that ongoing change and uncertainty can introduce to a project.
This also allows ongoing opportunities to review forecast costs and inform
future budget cycles, ensuring there is sufficient budget allocated to Public
Contact to maintain operational resilience.
Objective 2: To deliver a high level of public and victim centred services
The TOM has been designed with the needs of the Public being a clear priority and
focus on the ‘citizen experience’.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
9
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




New channels will improve the citizen experience, providing greater victim
access to information. The delivery and management of these channels, and
the technology that supports them, are lower risk and cost within a single
collaborated function as opposed to by individual Public Contact functions.
Improved public safeguarding as a result of implementing key elements of the
Athena Business Model within a collaborated function which will also improve
data quality and information flows resulting in better decision-making.
The TOM will also drive better signposting to other agencies through
improved recording, processes and ICT capabilities, supporting the wider
public agenda to improve public safety beyond the BCH forces.
Driving continuous improvement in terms of the quality of the service offered
to the public, as well as financially.
Objective 3: To create a healthy culture for staff with Continuous Improvement
Maintaining (and improving) staff morale is critical to ensuring Public Contact delivers
key benefits, particularly increased flexibility to changes in demand, and therefore the
TOM design aims to:






Provide access to information via CRM and Athena that empowers staff to
make more informed decisions thereby providing a better public service;
Maintain a more realistic level of staffing that meets demand from the public,
but is also operationally robust, reducing pressure on staff;
Introduce standardised processes and access to Force specific policy
information that provides staff with the required support to manage contact
and respond to different policies across BCH with ease;
Introduce coherent and consistent working across all three forces; by working
to a single set of processes the service provided to internal customers will
improve;
Focus on proactive staff development underpinned by appropriate training,
coaching and mentoring, improving staff capability and morale and driving
continuous improvement.
Give staff the opportunity to own and drive the delivery of change in a
collaboration environment.
Objective 4: To deliver up to 30% savings
The total impact of the TOM on Public Contact costs is presented in Table 2 (excluding
inflation). Savings are driven by:




Increased public contact access through lower cost channels;
Lower annual staff cost, driven by a reduced number of FTEs (from the
baseline including Athena), a reduction in the management and supervisor
layer, an increased staff:officer ratio and the adoption of a more demanddriven approach to resourcing and shifts.
More effective use of estates and ICT, consolidating from four sites to two;
Reduced number of unnecessary deployments, driving savings in
downstream Local Policing. These savings could be cashable depending on
strategic decisions being taken to reduce officer numbers; if the decision is
taken to maintain officer numbers the value of this benefit will be seen in
officer time released to support more operationally critical activities.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
10
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2: Costs and savings as a result of collaborated TOM (including cashable,
potentially cashable and non-cashable savings1)
Baseline
incl.
Athena
TOM (at
March
2017)
Savings /
Costs
TOM (at
March
2018)
Savings
/ Costs
%
Change
Staff / Officers
28.2
26.1
-2.1
24.3
-3.9
-14%
Estates
0.9
0.7
-0.2
0.6
-0.3
-33%
ICT
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.9
-0.1
-7%
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.0
0%
TOTAL PUBLIC CONTACT
COSTS AND SAVINGS
30.9
28.6
-2.3
26.7
-4.3
-14%
£m, 15/16 prices
Downstream savings
SAVINGS AS A RESULT
OF PUBLIC CONTACT
0
-8.1
-2.3
-12.4
There are two phases to the savings:


Some savings will be achieved on implementation of the TOM (planned for
March 2017); it is expected that these will be limited in the short-term as the
substantial change required will have an impact on staff productivity and more
supervisory and support staff are required in the early months (and before
implementation) of operation of the new model;
It is anticipated that full end-state savings (including increases in productivity,
channel shift and reduced supervisory and support staff requirement) can be
achieved approximately a year following go-live.
Table 3 shows the resultant level of savings that are relevant to the 30% savings
target2, profiled over five years. Of these, some are cashable savings directly
deliverable by the project; some depend on strategic decisions being taken external to
the Public Contact Collaboration Project in order to be cashable.
Table 3: Cashable and potentially cashable budget savings (£m, 15/16 prices)
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/203
Police Officers Released from Public
Contact
0.04
0.52
1.11
1.20
1.20
Police Staff Costs
0.02
0.27
1.16
2.69
2.69
Estates Rental Income
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.06
£m, 15/16 prices
Cashable Benefits
1
Cashable savings include release of police staff and officers from the Public Contact function and rental income from estate
no longer required by Public Contact; potentially cashable savings are ‘downstream’ savings of reduced deployments in Local
Policing (strategic decisions are required to determine if these are cashable (reducing officer numbers) or efficiency); noncashable savings represent estate that has been released and will be used by BCH for other functions. These estates savings
may ultimately be cashable, depending on decisions made as part of the broader BCH Estates Strategy, which aims to remove
spare capacity.
2
Non-cashable savings (e.g. estates efficiencies) do not count against the 30% savings target. However, rental income from
estates is included.
3
In 2019/20 baselines it is assumed there will be a one-off cost of £140k for updates to two core ICT systems, which will no
longer be required in the collaborated function. Therefore savings in 19/20 are £140k higher than ‘normal’ steady state. 18/19
includes no one-off costs and therefore is a direct comparator to annual end-state savings presented on slide 3.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
11
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/203
ICT
0.00
0.05
0.17
0.06
0.20
Total Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.86
2.49
4.01
4.15
Downstream Savings (reduced
deployments)
0.00
0.00
0.67
8.10
8.10
Total Cashable + Potentially
Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.86
3.17
12.11
12.25
2.07
8.50
8.71
8.86
9.10
Potentially Cashable Benefits
Savings Target
30% Savings Target
When Public Contact budgets and costs are compared without considering potential
downstream savings, the project does not meet its savings objective. However,
resourcing of the Public Contact function in the TOM has been set at a level which
creates the potential for significant downstream savings. Provided these savings can
be released by Local Policing, collaboration of the Public Contact function meets its
savings targets in the long term. Removing Resolution Team and Desk Based
Enquiries capabilities would mean a reduction in Public Contact function costs (and
increase in cashable savings) of £1.9m (15/16 prices) but would eliminate the
possibility of the estimated £8.1m downstream savings.
Implementation planning has followed the principle of pursuing quick wins and
accelerated implementation to release early savings where possible. Key HR and ICT
dependencies mean there is limited opportunity to shorten implementation timescales
without carrying major delivery and operational risk.
As part of the analysis to support this FBC a number of scenarios were run testing the
variability of the financial analysis to changes in key assumptions. These scenarios
focused on:






Athena activity currently assumed to be delivered outside of Public Contact
moving to the function;
Different channel shift take-up by the Public;
Optimistic and pessimistic views of IMU call handling times and volumes;
Changes to shift pattern assumptions;
Earlier or later go-live;
Staff vacancies.
As a result of this analysis, the risk of delay to the project was identified as being most
critical – both in terms of financial savings and delivery of wider benefits. The project is
currently working to a plan that assumes go-live for the full collaborated function in
March 2017. This is based on analysis of the critical path activities and when they can
be delivered, assuming some project risk is realised. The project also has a stretch
target to deliver by October 2016, which would be dependent on very few risks being
realised and all key tasks delivering on plan.
The project is aware of, and is actively managing, a number of key areas of uncertainty
and risk such as those examined in sensitivity analysis. However, none of this
uncertainty undermines the argument that there is substantial benefit to be gained
from implementing the proposed TOM. The annual end-state savings estimated as a
result of the FBC analysis are £12.4m (incorporating all cashable, potentially cashable
and non-cashable efficiencies) of which £4.0m is cashable. The sensitivity analysis
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
12
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
undertaken indicates that, at a minimum, the project should be targeting £12.1m full
savings (£3.8m cashable).
Other benefits
In addition to providing benefits that enable Public Contact to meet its objectives in the
next five years, implementing the proposed TOM provides a platform for further
possible improvement and efficiencies in the future such as:







Reduction in dispatch channels;
Introduction of agile working for some functions (dependent on development
of necessary supporting ICT);
Introduction of appointments as default / self-managed appointments;
Increased self-service functionality;
Improve management efficiency with more remote management;
Consolidation to a single site;
Broader collaboration (e.g. with local authorities)
Conclusion
Overall, the financial analysis shows that collaboration pays back in 2.9 years from
July 2015 and has a strong positive NPV of £20.2m, indicating that it is a value for
money investment. Furthermore, there are substantial non-financial benefits delivered
by the proposed collaborated TOM.
The TOM fundamentally meets more of the project CSFs and provides more potential
to achieve project objectives than maintaining the status quo. Therefore the Project
Team recommends that the TOM design as described be approved to allow the
project to proceed with detailed design post-FBC.
As a result of the BCH Strategic Alliance Board on 24 June 2015 the basic principles
on apportionment of the costs and savings of collaboration projects were agreed. In
line with these principles, Public Contact has presented costs and savings apportioned
on the basis of NRE, applying the ‘no loser’ principle to Public Contact savings, as
presented in Table 4. The Athena uplift is assumed apportioned on the basis of NRE.
Table 4: Indicative Public Contact funding required from each force4
£m, 15/16 prices
2015/16
Public Contact Collaboration Implementation Costs
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
5
Funded by Bedfordshire
0.16
0.17
0.64
0.05
0.05
Funded by Cambridgeshire
0.20
0.22
0.82
0.06
0.06
Funded by Hertfordshire
0.29
0.31
1.17
0.09
0.09
4
Costs exclude estates costs as these will not be cashable. However, Public Contact TOM Ongoing Operating Costs include
cashable income from rental of Copse Court, 100% allocated to Cambridgeshire.
5
Implementation costs to be funded exclude Change Team costs as these are already funded in existing BCH Change
budgets.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
13
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
£m, 15/16 prices
TOTAL
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
0.66
0.71
2.74
0.21
0.21
Public Contact Collaborated TOM Ongoing Operating Costs
Funded by Bedfordshire
6.08
6.42
6.56
6.36
6.36
Funded by Cambridgeshire
9.71
10.03
8.72
8.06
8.06
Funded by Hertfordshire
12.15
12.47
12.36
11.56
11.56
TOTAL
27.93
28.91
27.64
25.98
25.98
Allocated to Bedfordshire
0.00
-0.19
0.00
-0.20
-0.20
Allocated to Cambridgeshire
-0.11
-0.40
-1.70
-2.36
-2.36
Allocated to Hertfordshire
0.00
-0.55
-0.79
-1.46
-1.60
TOTAL
-0.11
-1.14
-2.49
-4.01
-4.15
Public Contact TOM Savings
Overall Forecast Increase / Decrease on Current Public Contact Budgets 6
Bedfordshire
0.09
0.38
0.57
0.37
0.37
Cambridgeshire
0.01
0.33
-0.97
-1.63
-1.63
Hertfordshire
0.17
0.49
0.25
-0.42
-0.56
TOTAL
0.28
1.21
-0.15
-1.67
-1.81
As the project progresses and refines its cost and savings forecasts, and there is
increased clarity of the impact of Athena on Public Contact costs, the forecast budget
requirements will be updated and communicated to inform budget planning in 16/17
and beyond.
A number of key principles have been developed that underpin the implementation
plan, focusing on the overall approach, HR and staff-related principles and ICT-related
principles.
These have been used to develop a detailed implementation plan, which is
summarised in Figure 2, based on the most likely go-live date of March 2017.
6
Represents net effect of Athena uplift and Public Contact savings on current Public Contact budgeted cost.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
14
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 2: Implementation plan
15
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This plan has been developed based on a realistic, informed view from internal experts
on how long activities will take and key dependencies. This results in overall
implementation costs of £6.14m (15/16 prices) over 5 years (including £1.77m Change
Team costs). Of the total implementation costs approximately half relates to HR costs
such as relocation allowance, redundancy and recruitment. The majority of these costs
occur in the next three years.
However, there are a number of risks within the RAID log that, if realised, could delay
go-live. This delay would reduce NPV, but scenario analysis indicates that NPV would
remain strongly positive even with a six month delay in go-live. The critical areas that
could drive delays to the project are:
Table 5: Critical path activities
Area
Rationale
Detailed Design
There are a number of key activities dependent on achieving a certain level
of maturity in the detailed design:


Meaningful HR consultations cannot take place until future roles and shift
patterns are defined and numbers of FTEs per team confirmed;
Key ICT systems cannot be implemented until the detailed requirement is
confirmed, aligned to the detailed design.
HR Consultation,
Negotiations and
Recruitment
HR activities are expected to be lengthy due to the large number of staff that
must be consulted and significant recruitment effort to maintain performance
through implementation, particularly if large numbers of staff do not relocate.
ICT Development
and Procurement
A number of new systems will need to be procured to support the TOM. ICT
procurement and implementation is critical to successful operation and
therefore sufficient time must be allowed to ensure the new systems are
robust and resilient.
To deliver this plan, an Implementation Team is being established as per Figure 3,
drawing resources from the team that delivered the FBC, which will continue to report
progress and decisions to relevant governance bodies.
BCH Governance
(Exec Lead)
SRO
(Project Lead)
Implementation Authority
Head of
FCR Cambs
Functional Management Team (post Release A
implementation)
Deputy Project
Lead
HR Lead
Implementation
Lead
Finance Lead
Procurement Lead
Athena
Liaison
Estates Lead - Herts
Detailed
Design
Team
Estates Lead - Cambs
Implementation
Specific MI (TBD)
Benefits MI
Detailed Design Lead
Athena
MI Lead
PMO
Comms and
Engagement
Lead
IMPLEMENTATION ENABLERS
Enablers Coordinator
DETAILED DESIGN
Self-Service
Implementation
Estates Lead - Beds
Head of
FCR Herts
Business Lead - ICT
Head of
FCR Beds
KEY
Part-time
contribution to PC
Critical Enabler
Implementation
Team
Most of
individual’s time
dedicated to PC
Vacant role
Temporary role
Figure 3: Implementation team structure
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
16
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A key focus through implementation will be on delivering the necessary ICT
improvements and enabling organisational and culture change, which are critical to
delivering an effective TOM.
There are a number of immediate priorities for implementation, for which detailed plans
will need to be finalised by August 2015:




Athena: Careful consideration of how an interim IMU solution (to support the
Athena go-live across the three Forces, by January 2016) will be delivered,
and what changes can be made in Public Contact to support it will be
required. This work will fall out of the Athena design process in July 2015.
Estates: Fine tuning of the desk and floor-space requirements, in conjunction
with ICT needs, will allow the development of the detailed plan, and any
interim steps required. This work should take place in August and September
2015.
Formal consultation with Staff Associations and UNISONs: Formal
overarching consultation with UNISONs and Staff Associations will
commence w/c 20th July and will run for the duration of the implementation
period.
ICT: The team will define the final solution with the support of vendors, to
prove the delivery timelines and increase confidence in delivery costs.
All of these activities will bring an increased level of confidence to the plan and allow
the programme to move into implementation, on agreement of this FBC.
It is recommended that the Project Team progresses to implementation phase
following the Strategic Alliance Summit on 9 July 2015, with the objective of
completing the detailed TOM design, starting staff consultations and ensuring project
momentum is maintained.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
17
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FBC PURPOSE
The purpose of the Public Contact Full Business Case (FBC) is to:




a)
b)
c)
d)
e)


a)
b)
c)

a)
b)
Provide key decision makers with enough information to decide whether or
not a single collaborated Public Contact function should be established,
to support Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire forces and,
if so, what the operating model for this function should be;
Articulate the strategic drivers for a collaborated Public Contact target
operating model which increases operational resilience, reduces cost,
delivers improved demand management, effectively deals with
operational priorities, utilises modern technology and provides an
improved citizen experience within a consistent tri-force approach;
Present the approach to ensuring Public Contact Collaboration and
Athena alignment in design, planning and delivery to better safeguard the
public and deliver more efficient working (noting that delivery of Athena and
justification of its costs and benefits are not within Public Contact
Collaboration Project scope);
Present a number of key decisions and recommendations for approval by
Joint Chief Officer Board (JCOB) and Strategic Alliance Summit (SAS) (some
of which will be ratification of direction previously provided) as follows:
Agreement of latest Target Operating Model (TOM) design (including key
performance measures) to allow progression to detailed design;
Agreement of the period of time over which the benefits of the Public
Contact Collaboration Project will be assessed;
Agreement of locations and configuration of locations to be
implemented;
Agreement of a phased approach to implementation and that HR
initiatives such as the review of Employment Model for collaborative
units and a single set of Terms and Conditions across the three forces
are not included Public Contact implementation scope;
Agreement that collaboration provides a platform for the future to deliver
further savings and efficiencies.
Note further initiatives to drive savings that build on the initial collaborated
Public Contact platform (such as HR alignment initiatives not included in
implementation scope) are possible and even likely and should be explored
within a robust change control process, once greater clarity of opportunities is
available;
Provide an update on the financial impact of Public Contact Collaboration on
each of the BCH forces including:
Clear distinction between the financial impact of the Athena programme and
other decisions outside of Public Contact project control on in-scope costs
and the impact of changes driven by Public Contact decisions;
Presentation of the level of savings achieved in each financial year as a
result of the recommended TOM design and how this compares to target
savings (up to 30%);
Discussion of the impact of different possible shift patterns on possible
savings; and
Present the proposed implementation plan to deliver the TOM including:
Procurement and detailed ICT solution development and delivery activities;
Development of detailed processes including system interactions;
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
18
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FBC PURPOSE
c)
d)
e)
f)
HR activities such as staff consultation, relocation, redeployment and
redundancy activities, shift review, training etc.;
Facilities alteration / estates strategy implementation;
Key internal and external communication activities; and
Identification of early benefit realisation opportunities.
The FBC will not present a complete and comprehensive TOM design to the lowest
possible detail. As a result, the costs and savings presented in FBC will not be 100%
confirmed; however, the key uncertainties will be identified and tested through
sensitivity and scenario analysis. The remaining detail will be developed through the
implementation process:




The final ICT solution will be developed through the procurement process and
with the final, selected supplier;
Fully detailed processes will be developed once the project has further clarity
on the detailed ICT solution;
Detailed role descriptions and their implications for staff relocation and
redundancy will be developed once the location and configuration are agreed;
A new shift pattern cannot be confirmed until a full shift review has been
undertaken, which will need to be coherent with wider staff changes.
All of the above requires clear governance arrangements to be in place to manage the
implementation journey including mitigation of the identified risks and mechanisms to
deal with issues and decisions as they arise.
The focus of the FBC will be on the first few years of operation of the new TOM. Public
Contact Collaboration is being delivered in a period of high uncertainty and wider
change, which significantly reduces the confidence in any costs and savings projected
over more than a five year period from today.
This FBC builds on the Outline Business Case (OBC) for Public Contact which was
approved on 22nd January 2015 by the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire Strategic Alliance Summit (SAS). The OBC included the following
decisions on four layers of the collaborated Public Contact TOM:
Customers – Include all citizens requiring BCH policing assistance, all internal
customers (e.g. local policing, users of policing Management Information, etc.)
and external customers (e.g. partner agencies, emergency services, etc.);
 Channels – A multi-channel service offering with digital channels for nonemergency reporting and enquiries;
 Services – A range of services being offered across multiple channels based on
an analysis of demand and threat risk and harm;
 Processes – Harmonised, integrated processes across the three forces.

The main focus of analysis within the OBC was on identifying a preferred option and
recommending decisions in the Performance Framework and Location Configuration
Layers, specifically:

Performance Framework - The level of call handling service level agreement
(SLA) that should be adopted within the Performance Framework:
a)
b)
c)

High SLA – 90% of 999 calls answered in 10 seconds; 90% of 101 calls
answered in 30 seconds;
Medium SLA – 90% of 999 calls answered in 10 seconds; 80% of 101 calls
answered in 30 seconds;
Low SLA – 90% of 999 calls answered in 10 seconds; 90% of 101 calls
answered in 60 seconds.
Location Configuration: The number and structure of sites within which the
future Public Contact service will operate:
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
19
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FBC PURPOSE
a)
b)
c)
d)
Single centre
Two mirrored centres
Two centres; separate functions
Three centres
Subsequent to the decisions on the OBC analysis presented to and engagement
through the Strategic Alliance Summit has determined that a Medium SLA within the
Performance Management Layer and Two Mirrored Centres within the Location
Configuration Layer presented the most efficient, effective and economic first step for
the FBC to deliver a collaborated Public Contact TOM. These decisions are justified
within the body of this FBC.
In addition, a paper was written and approved examining location options and
identifying the locations and location configuration for prioritisation of FBC analysis
(see Section 4.5 and Appendix P).
The People / Organisation Layer and ICT Layer of the TOM are developed in this
FBC on the basis of the above outcomes.
Since the production of the OBC the Athena integrated ICT system and business
model has been implemented in Essex and is planned to go live in Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire in January 2016. The implications of Athena have
been integrated into the FBC. The FBC demonstrates that Public Contact
Collaboration presents an opportunity to maximise the tri-force benefits of
Athena and to minimise the relative impact on each individual Force of Athena
implementation.
In order to justify the recommended options, the FBC has been prepared using the
standard HM Treasury Green Book Five Case model, comprising the following key
components:


a)
b)



The Strategic Case, which sets out the strategic context and the case for
change that have resulted in the Public Contact collaboration project, focusing
on strategic changes since Outline Business Case (OBC);
The Economic Case, which:
Provides a summary of the latest TOM design; and
Provides detailed financial, qualitative and risk analysis of the location and
configuration options so that a decision can be made as to which option
offers best value for money and allow the project to progress.
The Commercial Case, which outlines the procurement requirements for the
project as a result of the TOM design and the planned route to fill those
requirements;
The Financial Case which provides a view of the expected capital and
revenue funding requirements to deliver and run the Public Contact TOM,
how these are expected to be funded by each of the three forces, and
demonstrates whether the savings forecasts are in line with the required
savings in order to meet overall budget constraints; and
The Management Case, which shows that the project has a realistic plan,
sufficient skilled resources and the appropriate project and programme
management discipline to successfully implement the new Public Contact
TOM and deliver the benefits.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
20
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
The Strategic Case has been changed since the OBC to reflect a number of minor
updates in the strategic context and case for change, and to provide additional
information on the major change to the strategic context that is the better
understanding of the interdependency between the Athena Programme and the Public
Contact Collaboration Project. Athena has been incorporated into the core of the FBC.
However, the overall conclusion of the Strategic Case remains unchanged – that
Public Contact Collaboration offers substantial opportunities for economies of scale
(i.e. more for less) and utilisation of modern technology (i.e. channel shift) to transform
the way service is delivered to make it more citizen-centric and to deliver enhanced
victim satisfaction. This transformation must be driven through as soon as possible, to
align with other key priorities such as Athena and to deliver efficiencies in the light of
reduced and reducing budgets.
To summarise the key drivers for a collaborated Public Contact service within the
Strategic Case are:









Improved citizen experience as the project has a transformational focus on
utilising new channels which are easier to adopt across three forces at the same
time as opposed to individually;
Release of financial savings as a result of economies of scale arising from
combining three ‘like’ functions together which have a significant resource base;
Increased operational resilience and responsiveness arising from collaborating a
mission critical high-volume operational support function;
Improved demand management arising from applying common threat, harm and
risk models which will deliver downstream savings in an ever tightening fiscal
climate;
Improved public safeguarding as a result of implementing key elements of the
Athena Business Model within a collaborated function which will also improve
data quality and information flows resulting in better decision-making;
Common processes to support increased operational collaboration between
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire;
Providing a platform for continuous improvement across a tri-force function
where a common culture of delivery can be established across the workforce;
Support the national cost reduction and collaboration agendas for policing;
Delivers a strong Strategic Fit with the Police and Crime Plans for Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.
Organisation Overviews
Overview
Bedfordshire Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Hertfordshire Constabulary
(BCH) together service an area of 2,420 square miles with an approximate total
population of 2.59 million inhabitants. Bedfordshire is a diverse county, with Luton
being home to one of the most ethnically diverse populations of any town or city
outside of London. It is a small force in terms of police officer and staff numbers when
compared to Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and is considered a very low cost
force. It faces some complex policing challenges with unusually high levels of serious
threats and criminality not normally dealt with by a force of its size.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
21
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Cambridgeshire’s population has expanded rapidly in recent years, largely due to an
increase in migrant workers from Eastern Europe. People of more than 90 different
nationalities live in Cambridge and Peterborough, where both wealthy and socially
deprived communities live in close proximity. Cambridge has a significant student
population and attracts millions of visitors each year. These factors bring some unique
policing demands.
Hertfordshire Constabulary polices a densely populated county to the north of London.
Hertfordshire is a relatively prosperous county with one of the lowest crime rates in the
country. The standard of living is mostly high, unemployment is low and residents are
generally well-educated and well paid. However there are some areas of relative
deprivation, disadvantage and social exclusion.
Public Contact Services
A core part of the policing services provided by the three forces are facilities through
which citizens can contact the police in order to report a crime, request emergency
assistance or call upon any other services offered by the BCH police forces. These
services centre around managing incoming calls (either through the emergency 999
number or non-emergency 101 number), organising dispatch of officers where
required, arranging appointments and recording reported crimes and incidents (in line
with recording policies and guidance), all under a command and control framework.
These services are heavily interdependent with each other and with local policing. A
lean first-contact, call handling service, for example, pushes activity into recording,
investigations and local policing. As a result, changes to one area have to be
considered in terms of their impact on the whole.
These services, known as ‘public contact services’ are, for many members of the
public, the face of policing in the three forces. They further support and drive core
policing services in downstream local policing and crime processes.
Commissioners’ Police and Crime Plans
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 places a duty on Police and
Crime Commissioners to issue a ‘Police and Crime Plan’ for each financial year. The
three plans published by the Commissioners for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire have significant commonalities whilst recognising their unique local
priorities and needs in relation to crime and communities.
With specific reference to public contact, each of the plans has direct tangible
performance targets or quality commitments. These relate to ease of contact and
provision of a quality service at first contact with appropriate responsiveness in
operational delivery.
The Bedfordshire Police and Crime Plan explicitly states: “better information will be
provided to victims on first contact and they will be kept up to date with progress. All
services have tighter budgets and we must all work together more efficiently if victims
are not to lose out.”
The Cambridgeshire Plan focuses on transformation and highlights that “the public
must be able contact us in ways that are modern and convenient to them. We will keep
in touch with people in ways that suit them, without forgetting that as victims or
witnesses of crime everyone deserves to be treated with sensitivity, integrity and
respect.”
The Hertfordshire Plan positions itself in recognising that “we put the needs of the
public at the centre of our thoughts, plans and services” and that “we use technology
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
22
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
such as email or text messaging to keep in touch” through “a new approach to
customer care. I want to put victims of crime in the driving seat and enable them to
decide how much support they need, and how they want the Constabulary to keep in
touch.”
BCH Strategic Alliance
Bedfordshire Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Hertfordshire Constabulary
have a good history of collaborating on services where they can whilst ensuring their
independent local priorities, within their respective Police and Crime Plans, are
delivered.
A Memorandum of Understanding for the BCH Strategic Alliance, which was signed in
December 2013, has the following objectives:





To provide effective and efficient operational and organisational services at
reduced cost.
The shared strategic intent is to deliver a target operating model which
protects and enables local policing in each Force area by sharing
organisational and operational support services.
To provide agreed levels of service to support frontline policing whilst meeting
the funding challenge.
To maintain adequate provision of organisational and operational support
services through collaboration. Service delivery in shared areas will be
measured and improved against agreed Collaboration Service Agreements.
To assist in achieving the aims contained within each Police and Crime
Commissioner’s Plan whilst also having regard to the requirements of the
Strategic Policing Requirement.
Significant Change and Uncertainty
There is a large number of change projects and programmes currently ongoing at
BCH, the majority of which are expected to deliver within the next 1 to 3 years. As a
result:



Any change project or programme being delivered is required to manage a
large number of interdependencies, building complexity and risk into delivery;
Staff across the organisation are operating within an uncertain environment,
with a consequent impact on stress and motivation;
Project delivery and support resources are stretched across a number of
projects.
Those change projects and programmes that are relevant to this FBC are outlined in
section 3.4.5.
Business Strategies
Change in the way police services in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire
are delivered, is being driven by a number of key government policies and strategies.
Of these, four are particularly relevant to the way public contact services are delivered:
1) use of modern technology and information sharing to improvement management of
threat, harm and risk; 2) the drive to deliver ‘more for less’; 3) increased focus on
collaboration between forces; and 4) a drive to make more services ‘digital by default’.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
23
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Modern Technology and Information Sharing
On 17th December 2003, Ian Huntley was convicted of the murders of Jessica
Chapman and Holly Wells. In the days following Huntley’s conviction, there was
widespread public disquiet when it became clear that he had been known to the
authorities over a period of years. He had come to the attention of Humberside Police
in relation to allegations of eight separate sexual offences from 1995 to 1999. This
information had not emerged during the vetting check, carried out by Cambridgeshire
Constabulary at the time of Huntley’s appointment to Soham Village College late in
2001.
The recognition that police data was not well managed or shared leading to
operational risk led to the conception of the Athena programme.
Athena is an integrated operational policing model that is being adopted by all police
forces within the eastern region (plus Kent). It includes a single integrated IT solution
that will replace all the major current operational IT systems (except for Command and
Control) currently in Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.
The decision to adopt Athena in BCH was taken in 2010 and Athena is due to go live
in BCH in January 2016. It is important to acknowledge that Athena was conceived
prior to the reductions in public sector funding and at the time it was recognised that
investment would be required to increase the quality and coherence of police
information to better protect the public. Athena supports operational policing by
increasing access to improved information to enable improved frontline decisionmaking and to streamline operational processes via a single system.
The Athena business model is based around the use of three ‘bureaus’ to deal with
this improved recording and data management, these being:



An Investigation Management Unit (IMU);
A Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB);
A Criminal Justice Unit (CJU).
Athena impacts all areas of operational policing and there is a significant overlap in
scope between Athena and Public Contact Collaboration. At the BCH Joint Chiefs
Operating Board (JCOB) on 17 March 2015 (see Strategic Decisions for Athena Data
Management paper at Appendix A) it was agreed that:


A single IMU across the three forces will be established; and that
Given the overlap in terms of process with existing functions within the Public
Contact Collaboration scope, this IMU would be designed and implemented
as part of the Public Contact Collaboration Project.
The above represents the ultimate ‘end-state’ and there was recognition that as
Athena would ‘go live’ before any Public Contact Collaboration that interim solutions
will be required in the three forces, with enhanced mobilisation, before the ultimate
objective was achieved.
This resulted in a substantial change to Public Contact scope, requiring rapid review
and update of TOM design to incorporate the required changes. Subsequent decisions
were made by JCOB on 9th June 2015, to reduce the Athena activity within the Public
Contact IMU on the basis that local policing and other functions would take on more
data management responsibilities.
The Athena Programme is due to go live in January 2016, with user training due to
start in September 2015. To that end the Programme Team is currently conducting a
series of workshops with key stakeholders aimed at::
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
24
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE




Clarifying and communicating how Athena will drive benefits and support the
three Forces in being more efficient, and the scale of the challenge to deliver
these benefits;
Agreeing the approach to developing the detailed design;
Establishing flexible governance to support the design process and decision
making within the existing timescales;
Developing a business design for the changes that Athena will enable by end
July 2015 in order to meet the January 2016 go-live.
These workshops will conclude in mid-July 2015, aiming to deliver a detailed Athena
design, including a matured view of the costs and benefits of the programme, as
outlined in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Athena workshops approach
The impact of Athena on the project is revisited throughout this business case with a
particular focus in: Section 333.4.2 which outlines the impact of Athena on Public
Contact baseline costs; Section 3.4.5 on Dependencies Section 6.2 on Affordability;
and Section 7.3.2 on the Implementation Plan.
‘More for Less’
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire police forces are working in a
challenging financial climate and must reduce costs as a result of the 2010 and 2015
Comprehensive Spending Reviews (CSRs). When the 20 percent reduction to the
central government funding grant was announced in October 2010 the initial response
led forces to look individually at ways to save money. However, with the passage of
time, the complexity of police funding formulas, changes to crime trends and the need
to meet both National and Local policing obligations, forces needed to look at other
opportunities to deliver an effective service within the budgetary constraints set by
Government. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire police forces as part of
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
25
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
their initial response utilised collaboration, in particular in the Joint Protective Services
areas, to contribute to savings and protect the frontline.
In September 2014 the Home Secretary predicted that austerity measures would
continue into the medium-term. It is feasible that these constraints will continue until
2020. Based on the current economic forecast, post the December 2014 Budget
Statement, this could translate to in the region of further 20% real term reduction in Net
Revenue Expenditure for police forces until 2020.
These constraints resulted in a proposed 30% savings target being set in the Public
Contact Project Outline Document (POD), which would form a key component of the
three forces’ drive to reduce Net Revenue Expenditure to meet overall austerity
targets. This 30% target was presented against an early draft of the 2014/15 public
contact budget and resulted in a forecast savings target of £7.1m from 2016/17.
However, at the time of writing the POD, the full scope of functions within the public
contact definition had not been determined. The difference in the baseline costs
assumed in the POD, through the OBC to the FBC are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Baseline movements from TOM to FBC (excluding Athena)
£m
POD
OBC
FBC
Staff and Officers
23.2
26.2
25.9
Estates
0.0
0.8
0.9
ICT
0.0
1.1
0.9
Additional Costs
0.7
0.8
0.9
TOTAL
23.9
28.9
28.5
Crime units that complete some relevant recording and support activity such as
Bedfordshire Crime Admin and Cambridgeshire IMU were not within the original POD
scope; they were added to Public Contact. In addition, Public Contact Estates and ICT
costs were not included in the POD and Additional Costs excluded unsocial hours and
South East weighting as well as transport and supplies and services.
For the FBC the Project Team used the final version of the 15/16 budget to underpin
staff costs, as well as identifying some staff within Hertfordshire Crime Recording /
Crime Services Team included in OBC who were not relevant to Public Contact. A
thorough review was undertaken of Estates and ICT costs by experts in the respective
parts of BCH and some updates were made to Additional Costs.
Alongside the drive to seek major cost reduction across public services, the Coalition
Agreement of 20107 stated that policing will also aim to be more effective, resulting in a
need to identify innovative ways to reduce costs whilst improving the quality of service
provision.
In relation to public contact services the ‘more for less’ drive presents an opportunity to
protect the frontline by aligning and modernising this core area of business. As public
contact represents the main method through which ‘demand’ for local policing and
crime services enters policing organisations it is ideally suited to be collaborated,
process re-engineered and ICT-enabled to ensure the most effective use is made of
scarcer and more pressurised frontline resources to best meet public need. However,
7
The Coalition: our programme for government
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
26
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
the expectation of society regarding how the Police deal with and respond to demand
will need to be re-imagined through strong engagement and communication.
Collaboration Focus
The ability of forces and PCCs to derive efficiency and effectiveness benefits without
reducing public service quality levels is becoming increasingly difficult in the ever
tightening fiscal climate.
Collaboration provides an opportunity for forces to reduce costs whilst minimising the
impact upon the ‘frontline’. It enables greater economies of scale, whilst also seeking
to maintain performance and service delivery standards wherever possible.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 strengthened the duties placed
on chief officers, policing bodies and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to
support collaboration across their own and other police force areas. Prior to this, police
authorities were only required to support collaboration in their own forces.
To further encourage collaboration a new direction has been introduced such that,
where collaboration would provide the best overall outcome across the collaborating
group of police forces, a chief officer or policing body should pursue it – even if they do
not expect their own force to directly benefit. This is designed to ensure that
collaboration takes place wherever it is in the wider public interest.
This collaboration drive is focussing activity in police forces and wider public services
such as Fire and Rescue across the country. Appendix A presents the national
picture of contact management collaboration.
Bedfordshire Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Hertfordshire Constabulary
and their respective Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are committed to
maximising the operational benefits and reduction in costs that effective collaborative
working can achieve. By April 2013 the three forces had already fully collaborated in
the area of Protective Services (i.e. functions dealing with high level Threat Harm Risk
and / or cross-border activity) as well as some other areas. The Athena Programme,
which aims to introduce an integrated operational policing model across all police
forces within the eastern region (plus Kent), is another example of major collaborative
effort across the forces.
In December 2013 the three forces and PCCs signed a ‘Memorandum of
Understanding’ (MoU) to fully collaborate on Organisational Support and Operational
Support services. This would ensure service delivery remains coherent and becomes
consistent in areas where there is a clear case for collaboration. Public Contact was
assessed to be the highest priority for collaboration within the Operational Support
Services arena: as it is the point at which ‘demand’ enters the ‘policing system’ and
there is a high-level of commonality across the three forces. There are substantial
opportunities for economies of scale and modern technology can be used to transform
the way service is delivered.
In the future it may be feasible to expand public contact services collaborative-type
solutions into a regional setting or to work with other Blue Light Services. The first step
is for police forces to transform and collaborate on this business area to make it as
efficient and effective as possible as widening the scope too early would hinder
progress.
Digital by Default
Public sector organisations are being encouraged to seek opportunities to increase
online access to public services as a means to deliver more for less – an initiative
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
27
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
known as ‘Digital by Default’. This is underpinned by the Government Digital Strategy
published in November 2012 and a number of further reports and studies echo and
reinforce the requirement to provide online services:


a)
b)
c)
d)
e)


a)
b)

a)
b)
c)
The HMIC Core Business Inspection report which was published in
September 2014 stated: “police forces have failed to embrace and exploit the
capacities of modern technology - progress until now has been too slow,
insular and isolationist. This must change urgently; for as long as these
material shortcomings persist, lives are at risk”.
The National Contact Management Strategy 2012 (NPIA & ACPO), against
which police forces are measured and inspected, echoed this direction
acknowledging that:
A channel strategy that supports the needs of local communities and
encourages the development of digital channels is crucial to improving
engagement between the public and the police service.
It is crucial that the service continues to improve accessibility through on-line
channels that meet public expectations.
One of the key influences on satisfaction and confidence is the provision of
information to the public and that this should be tailored to meet individual
needs.
The application of systems that analyse interactions provides visibility of
previously unknown relationships and drivers.
Public services should aim to provide more services on-line as opposed to
simply using the internet to push information to the public as this has the
potential to free up resources and provides the customer with the
opportunity to engage using their channel of preference.
The draft National Vision for Policing 2016 states that citizens should be able
to easily contact the police through a variety of means, owning transactions
and accessing information relevant to them. When contacting the police
previous contacts should be readily available to support an appropriate
response. The Vision endorses the best use of technology and supports
approaches in terms of joint working across forces and with partners.
In order to assess the appetite for digital service offerings within the Public
Contact collaboration project, a Public Engagement Survey was conducted,
with 95 respondents. The Cambridgeshire Public Confidence Survey, seeking
to assess the appetite for digital service offerings within Public Contact
(Appendix B) found that:
57% of those surveyed would report a minor crime online;
55% of those surveyed think the police should offer an online or email based
update service for victims to use.
The Victim Satisfaction Survey (VSAT, April 2014, Appendix C) focused on
public opinion toward self-service crime tracking. The Metis Project Research
Bureau spoke to 469 victims of crime. Results can be summarised as follows:
51% were positive about the idea of using our website to track the
investigation of their crime;
A further 11% were generally positive but pointed out some qualifying
issues;
Crimes considered included: racism, burglary, violence or vehicle theft
and/or damage.
The range of communication channels that customers expect to be able to use in their
daily lives has quickly broadened beyond the traditional contact methods of paper mail,
face to face, and voice. Customers not only expect that service engagement will
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
28
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
include e-mail, web self-serve, web chat, short message service (SMS) and social
media but they also want to be able to shift seamlessly between different forms of
contact with the same organisation.
From an organisational perspective there is a critical need to deliver a solution that
allows for a comprehensive single view of all interactions with customers across all
channels of communication, in a way which supports staff in identifying vulnerability
and reducing risk and provides an opportunity to engage with hard to reach groups,
providing a non-threatening gateway to help.
Other strategies, policies and guidance
In addition to the key strategic drivers highlighted in Section 3.2.2, the Public Contact
collaboration project will align with a number of other strategies, policies and guidance,
which will materially enable it to deliver a solution that aligns with public need:

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)






HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Thematic Inspection Reports:
Core Business (Sep 2014)
Crime Recording
Beyond the Call (February 2007)
First Contact (November 2005)
Open all hours (November 2001)
HMIC Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy (PEEL) Inspections
National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)
National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR)
Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR)
Authorised Professional Practice (APP) from the College of Policing
National Contact Management Principles and Guidance
The impact of each of these on Public Contact is fully explored in Appendix D.
Project Objectives
The current Public Contact functions across the three forces do not allow BCH to
deliver the strategies outlined in Section 3.2.2. The aim of this project is to design and
implement a single, collaborated Public Contact structure across the three forces, with
processes to manage:



Call Handling and other public contact (i.e. web, email, social media, etc.);
Command and Control;
Crime Recording.
The overall vision for collaborated Public Contact is: “Providing the right service to
citizens and other customers at the right time, enabling the organisation and our
partners to deliver that service and manage risk all in a cost effective manner".
This vision has resulted in four key project objectives that drive the planning and
design of collaborative Public Contact. These are unchanged from the OBC; however,
as noted in Section 3.2.2, the strategic context now includes a major need to
incorporate Athena Programme requirements into project delivery. This introduces
additional challenges in delivering the project objectives, which are explored
throughout the FBC.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
29
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Table 7: Project objectives and definition
Project Objective
Definition

To effectively manage
operational risk
To deliver a high level
of public and victim
centred services
Ensure processes are focused on minimising the risk of detrimental
outcomes for the public / victims
Provide the tools and resources so that operators can identify and
avoid harm to callers
Provide the right resource and resolution method to meet public /
victims needs
Enable increased appropriate resolution of callers’ concerns at the
first attempt
Enable reduced running cost of Public Contact operations to deliver
on-going value-for-money for the BCH police forces
Provide the flexibility and levers to control the cost of future services
and change
Identify opportunities for Public Contact to release savings in other
areas of business, possibly through impacts on downstream demand
Support a culture of continuous quality improvement ensuring staff
understand their role in continually improving the service
Instil a clear understanding in staff of their role to provide the public
with an excellent service, getting it right first time
Improve staff management and support to improve morale, reduce
sickness and increase staff retention




To deliver up to 30%
savings



To create a healthy
culture for staff with
Continuous
Improvement


This section provides an overview of how public contact services are delivered across
the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire police forces. It focuses on three
dimensions that align with the strategic drivers identified in Section 3.2.2: current costs
and performance; current degree of alignment in terms of process and structure across
the three forces; and the channels through which services are currently delivered.
Further detail on the current public contact operating models for each of the three
forces is available in Appendix F.
Current costs and performance of public contact service delivery
The estimated current cost of delivering public contact services in Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire police forces has been updated since development
of the OBC and currently breaks down as per the table below.
Table 8: 2015/16 Budget to deliver public contact services across three forces (£m,
2015/16 prices)
£ (million)
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
FDU (triforce)
TOTAL
Officer and Staff costs
(including Overtime and
Unsocial Hours)
5.6
9.1
11.2
0.0
25.9
Estate running costs
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.9
ICT
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.9
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
30
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Other (E.g. Transport and
Supplies & Services)
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.9
TOTAL
6.2
9.9
12.5
0.0
28.5
As shown in Table 9 that the split of Public Contact function costs is currently out of
alignment with net revenue expenditure (NRE), which is the general basis on which
collaborated function costs are split. Cambridgeshire currently spends relatively more
on Public Contact than Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
Table 9: Current Public Contact budgets split vs NRE
£ (million)
Bedford-shire
Cambridge-shire
Hertford-shire
Current % split of costs
21.7%
34.6%
43.8%
NRE apportionment
24.4%
31.2%
44.4%
Variance from NRE
-2.7%
3.4%
-0.6%
The high level FTE numbers that make up these staff costs are presented in the table
below.
Table 10: Current FTE numbers across three forces according to 2015/16 budget
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
TOTAL
Chief Superintendent8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Superintendent
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Chief Inspector
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Oscar 1
6.0
6.5
8.0
20.5
Crime Services Inspector
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
Sergeant
0.0
5.3
8.0
13.3
Constable
0.0
32.7
26.0
58.7
Officer Total
7.0
46.5
43.0
96.5
Departmental Manager
2.3
4.3
1.4
8.0
Assistant Manager
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.7
Police Officer
Police Staff
8
Although Chief Superintendents are not included in the numbers presented below or in the costs
presented in this FBC, there will be some time across the 5 Chief Superintendents that will be applied
to managing public contact functions. Furthermore, PA roles are not included in the FBC baseline or
TOM as they are considered allocated to the PA pool. However, PA resource requirements will be
reviewed as part of the ongoing collaboration programme and there is an expectation that there will
be appropriate provision of resources to support the future operating model.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
31
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
TOTAL
Supervisor
17.6
11.6
26.7
55.9
Operator
128.4
158.3
204.1
490.8
RMU9
0.0
3.0
4.1
7.1
Training
1.0
7.0
4.8
12.8
Admin
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Staff Total
149.2
184.3
244.9
578.3
TOTAL FTE
156.2
230.8
287.9
674.8
A breakdown of the call volumes and performance against key metrics that the current
spend achieves is outlined in the table below.
Table 11: Current call volumes and performance metrics across three forces10
Feature
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
999 Call Target
85% in 10 seconds
90% in 10 seconds
90% in 10 seconds
999 Call Performance
YTD – 83%
YTD – 95%
YTD 90%
999 Call Volume
73,383
74,010
135,184
999 Average Call
Handle Time (AHT)11
00:02:36
00:02:22
00:04:13
101 Call Target
80% in 30 seconds
90% in 30 seconds
80%in 30 seconds
101 Call Performance
YTD 81%
YTD 94%
YTD 85%
101 Call Volume
288,185
382,080
369,792
101 Average Call
Handle Time (AHT)
00:02:36
00:13:42
00:04:13
Crime Recording
Target
In line with NCRS &
HOCR target assumed to
be 100%
In line with NCRS &
HOCR target assumed to
be 100%
In line with NCRS &
HOCR target assumed to
be 100%
Crime Recording
Performance12
92.7% Crimes from
incidents
93% Crimes from
incidents
88% Crimes from
incidents
9
Within Bedfordshire resource management is provided as a central function without specific staff
allocated to Public Contact.
10
These numbers have not been updated since OBC as a complete comparative data set is not
available. They remain a reasonable representation of current Public Contact performance.
11
AHT: Taken at a set point in time and not continually refreshed. Sources: First Contact Evaluation Survey
23/6/14- 30/7/14), 101 AHT Cambs taken October 2014 from PSC Team Member, All other AHT obtained and
updated by BCH Design Team. Final Cut November 2014.
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire – Both forces conduct formal monthly NCRS audits covering all aspects of data
integrity. The figures published here are an average of figures taken from between April – July 2014.
12
Cambridgeshire – Although Cambs complete monthly audits in terms of crime data integrity, the particular subject
for the audit will change by month. They often focus on specific crime types, rather than all crime / incidents. The
most applicable survey for this presentation was from 20/11/14. It measured 391 incidents raised between 3rd-
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
32
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Feature
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
87.2% Crimes within
72hrs
N/A Crimes within 72hrs
94.6% Crimes within
72hrs
Crime Recording
Volume
47,394
46,364
76,242
Crime Recording
Average Call Handle
Time (AHT)
00:18:23
00:23:09
00:13:16
The figures above show some discrepancy in current Average Call Handle Time
across the three forces. This is due to current differences in process. It should be
noted that the length of a 101 call in Cambridgeshire can be attributed to there not
being a separate Crime Recording function. Therefore, the Crime Report is completed
real-time while the victim/ informant is on the phone.
It is generally accepted that public contact services across the three forces are underresourced. This has emerged through discussions with local services on the
challenges they face, and through Erlang C modelling of expected staff numbers to
manage current call levels. Although it should be noted that this modelling is based on
high level assumptions and therefore cannot confidently quantify the extent of underresourcing, it is felt that, across the three forces, public contact services are between
4-6% under-resourced. A recent uplift of establishment in Cambridgeshire has started
to address this but it will be difficult for BCH as a whole to consistently meet required
performance standards within budget constraints without a substantial change in how
Public Contact is delivered. If collaborated Public Contact services aim to deliver
service levels that meet agreed performance levels, this reduces the project’s ability to
achieve 30% savings against current costs, which are not meeting those performance
levels.
This baseline of performance is based on current operations. However, it is known that
the introduction of new processes to support the Athena business model will increase
crime recording handling time due to an increased requirement to link POLE (Person,
Object, Location, Event) data and introduce new requirements to record and link
investigations data. The current remit and staffing of existing Public Contact services
across the three forces are not designed to deliver this additional requirement. Current
Athena programme plans include implementing interim local IMUs before
collaboration; it is anticipated that implementing Athena in three forces individually
rather than in a collaborated function may introduce some service risk due to the large
uplift in FTEs that would be required, which the forces may struggle to resource. This
impact is explored in the next section.
Impact of Athena on Public Contact costs and performance
As Athena was not a feature of the OBC for a collaborated Public Contact function it is
necessary in this section to provide detail on how costs have been projected to provide
a new baseline. There are a number of key interdependencies between the Athena
Programme and Public Contact Collaboration which are explored in detail in Section
3.4.5. The overlaps in scope and staff impacts means that the success of each
initiative is highly dependent on the other:
7th November. Of these incidents 324 were considered to be crimes, but only 302 had actually been recorded as
crimes – this gives the figure of 93%
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
33
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE


The Athena Investigations Management Unit (IMU) will impact many of the
same staff affected by Public Contact requiring alignment in staff
engagement, consultation, training etc.;
The IMU processes closely relate to processes already delivered by Public
Contact.
To drive coherency between the programmes a decision was made following the OBC
that the Public Contact Project would design the IMU and incorporate it within the
TOM.
As Athena will be implemented regardless of Public Contact Collaboration, the impact
of Athena is considered part of the baseline against which the Public Contact
Collaboration Project will make savings. The introduction of an IMU into the Public
Contact function will introduce an uplift in cost in Public Contact; this will be offset by
efficiencies and savings in other BCH functions and local policing.
Athena requires a number of changes to the operating model of the three Forces
across the investigation lifecycle. This includes aspects of the Forces which are
collaborated (or intend to be collaborated) such as Public Contact, and other aspects
of the Force which will remain separate, such as Local Policing. The changes to the
operating model will ‘front-load’ a number of activities into an Investigation
Management Unit (IMU), and this will increase the cost of this part of the process.
However, some of this cost will be off-set by activities which are conducted elsewhere
with the BCH policing systems and the magnitude of this will not be known until the
Athena detailed design process has been completed at the end of July 2015.
By making this change and increasing costs, the rest of the investigation lifecycle
should be more efficient and effective, as work is displaced and the single linked dataset allows more effective searching of systems and identification of suspects.
The cost uplift in Public Contact is due to an increase in the number of records that
must be captured to comply with Athena requirements, and the increased time to
record and link information in the new system. This uplift is not directly pertinent to the
decision on whether to proceed with Public Contact Collaboration. This uplift would
have occurred anyway and the impact is minimised by Public Contact Collaboration as
it is more economical to conduct this work within a single tri-force approach as
opposed to individually in each of the forces. However, it is recognised that the
magnitude of this uplift is of great interest to project stakeholders and is relevant to the
affordability of the Public Contact function in the future.
As a consequence the impact of Athena on the Public Contact baseline is considered
within this FBC and presented in this section to allow for a sensible assessment of the
benefits of Public Contact collaboration.
Approach to incorporating Athena in Public Contact baseline
Ideally this FBC requires the costs of delivering Athena without Public Contact
Collaboration (i.e. delivering three individual IMUs across the forces), which would
form the Public Contact baseline. Public Contact cannot influence the costs of Athena
but it needs to recognise the impact that Athena will have on in-scope costs.
However, this information will not be available until towards the end of July, after
delivery of the Public Contact FBC. As a consequence, the Public Contact
Collaboration project has applied a simple approach to approximate the impact of
Athena on the baseline and demonstrate the savings Public Contact can deliver on this
Athena-inclusive baseline.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
34
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
In order to indicate the level of savings that Public Contact Collaboration can deliver
(without an estimate of the cost to implement and run Athena in an un-collaborated
function available) the project has adopted a simple approach:
1. Establish the baseline full time equivalent staff (FTEs) and costs without
Athena or Public Contact Collaboration;
2. Extract the FTEs and cost associated with those activities that are
comparable to Athena IMU activities (i.e. crime recording);
3. Calculate the new FTE requirement to deliver a collaborated Public Contact
function, including an Athena IMU within the design;
4. Determine the elements of the collaborated IMU that drive the increased FTE
requirement (i.e. recording and linking) and extract the associated FTEs;
5. Subtract 2 (baseline Athena-comparable IMU FTEs) from 4 (future TOM
Athena-driven IMU FTEs) to calculate the increase in FTEs as a result of
Athena;
6. Apply the appropriate salary information to determine the cost uplift as a
result of Athena;
7. Determine the increased floorspace required for the larger number of staff
and estimate the increase in estates costs allocated to Public Contact as a
result of Athena.
This will not produce a fully accurate picture of the increase in baseline cost as a result
of Athena:


The calculated uplift will be for a collaborated function; in reality,
implementing Athena in three locations would likely require additional FTEs;
It does not consider the wider impact of this staffing requirement on estates
and ICT beyond a basic increase in estates costs allocated to Public Contact.
As the Athena Programme progresses, the estimate of the Athena-inclusive baseline
will become more certain. The above approach provides a sensible starting point to
demonstrate the benefits of Public Contact Collaboration with the available
information.
Key assumptions
The full set of assumptions that have driven the Public Contact FBC analysis are
captured in Appendix H. The key assumptions relevant to the assessment of the
impact of Athena on the Public Contact Collaboration baseline are:
Table 12: General Athena-related assumptions
Assumption
Rationale
Athena drives recording and linking
activity; any increases in investigations
are driven by Public Contact TOM
decisions, not Athena.
Although Athena enables investigations, the decision to
include Desk Based Enquiries in the TOM is not enforced
by Athena and is therefore a Public Contact scope
decision.
The number of FTEs currently involved
in Athena-related activities within Public
Contact can be approximated by the
number of FTEs currently in crime roles.
Currently some crime staff within Public Contact staff are
involved in investigations; however, some call handling
staff are involved in recording. There is insufficient data
available to accurately determine what proportion of staff
time is spent recording as opposed to investigating or call
handling. It is felt that using the total current crime staff is a
reasonable approximation.
Within the IMU 80% of calls will be
The speed of response is not as critical in the IMU as in
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
35
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Assumption
Rationale
responded to within 3 minutes.
first contact and the IMU can make use of relevant
technology such as interactive voice response (IVR) and
call-back.
The Public Contact IMU will only
manage recording, quality assurance
and linking of information provided
directly by members of the public to the
contact centre. Any Athena records
created by Local Policing or other
functions will be linked and quality
assured within those functions.
However, the IMU will continue to
manage the allocations for
investigations and outcomes for crimes.
This decision was made at JCOB on 9th June 2015 in order
to manage the Public Contact function affordability. This
has an impact on the level of risk held by BCH in a number
of areas:



There is increased uncertainty in the final Athena operating
model design and therefore an increased risk that changes
in Athena assumptions will significantly impact Public
Contact design work and planned timescales;
There are new risks that activity now assumed to be
completed by Local Policing and other functions cannot be
completed in these functions and Public Contact is required
to manage more activity than currently planned and
budgeted;
There are new risks to Local Policing, that they will be
unable to meet performance targets due to new Athena
requirements. If Athena targets are not met, it is likely
Athena benefits (e.g. reducing operational risk) driven by
improved data management will not be achieved.
The IMU will not record some optional
non-crime investigation types
(suspicious incidents and ASB –
Environmental).
This decision was made at JCOB on 9th June 2015 in order
to manage the Public Contact function affordability. This
introduces compliance risks to the Athena programme.
The IMU will use analysis undertaken
by Norfolk and Suffolk forces to
estimate time taken to enter and link
Athena records.
This decision was made at JCOB on 9th June 2015 in order
to manage the Public Contact function affordability. This
increases risk that the TOM underestimates the FTEs
require to deliver the Athena requirement and therefore
that further investment is required than currently planned.
Athena goes live in January 2016
In line with latest Athena delivery plan.
In addition to the above general assumptions, specific assumptions have been applied
with regards to the types of activities that will be undertaken by the IMU and the
volumes and handle times to manage these activities. These are fully explained in
Appendix H.
Impact of Athena on Public Contact baseline
Athena is assumed to drive an increase in police staff operators and supervisors,
along with some additional training and RMU resources to manage this uplift. The
overall FTE requirement including Athena (before collaboration) is presented in Table
13.
Table 13: Baseline (before collaboration) FTEs including Athena
Baseline FTE
excluding
Athena
Baseline FTE
including
Athena
Uplift
Police Officers
Chief Superintendent
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Baseline FTE
excluding
Athena
Baseline FTE
including
Athena
Uplift
Superintendent
2.0
2.0
0.0
Chief Inspector
0.0
0.0
0.0
Oscar 1
20.5
20.5
0.0
Crime Services Inspector
2.0
2.0
0.0
Sergeant
13.3
13.3
0.0
Constable
58.7
58.7
0.0
Officers Total
96.5
96.5
0.0
Departmental Manager
8.0
8.0
0.0
Assistant Manager
2.7
2.7
0.0
Supervisor
55.9
62.2
6.2
Operator
490.8
546.7
56.0
RMU
7.1
10.1
3.0
Training
12.8
14.8
2.0
Admin
1.0
1.0
0.0
Staff Total
578.3
645.5
67.2
TOTAL FTE
674.8
742.0
67.2
Police Staff
The impact of Athena on the Public Contact baseline over 5 years is shown in Table
14. In line with the assumption that Athena will be implemented in January 2016, costs
start to increase in 15/16 before being fully realised in 16/17 (noting that this is
assuming collaboration does not happen). The main uplift is in staff and officer costs
(as outlined above) and in estates costs, reflecting the greater workspace required for
the larger function.
Table 14: Impact of Athena on Public Contact baseline by year
Cost (£m)
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Staff and Officers
25.9
25.9
25.9
25.9
25.9
Estates
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
ICT
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
TOTAL
28.6
28.6
28.7
28.6
28.7
Staff and Officers
26.3
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
Estates
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Baseline Excluding Athena
Baseline Including Athena
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
37
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Cost (£m)
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
ICT
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
TOTAL
28.8
31.0
31.1
30.9
31.1
UPLIFT
0.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
The full breakdown of this uplift into its component parts is presented in Figure 5, in
line with the assumptions captured above. This shows how current baseline costs
include an element of crime recording (currently costing BCH £5.2m annually), which
is comparable to future Athena requirements and is assumed to be the element of the
current organisation that will be absorbed into the IMU. The dark green columns
represent the activities that the new IMU will deliver and the approximate cost of each
IMU activity, with a total final IMU cost of £7.6m, which a £2.4m uplift on current costs.
As shown in the graph, the Public Contact IMU will not deliver any quality assurance
and linking of Athena records generated outside of the Public Contact function.
0.2
0.1
30.9
Increased Estates
requirement
FBC Baseline
Including Athena
32
Athena support
staff
£m
Baseline Cost Movements including Athena
0.8
0.5
2.3
-5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
QA and linking
'sideways' demand
28.5
QA and linking
officer-generated
non-crime
30
0.7
28
3.2
26
24
23.3
Determining
outcomes
Allocating for
further
investigation
Provide
information update
to public
QA and linking
officer-generated
crime
Recording and
linking information
updates
Recording and
linking STORM 30
incidents
Recording and
linking publicgenerated crime
FBC Baseline
Without Crime
Recording
Less: As-Is Crime
Recording*
20
FBC Baseline no
Athena
22
Figure 5: Breakdown of Athena uplift
The underlying assumptions have been reviewed by the Athena team and align with
their latest thinking.
The £2.4m annual uplift to Public Contact function costs as a result of Athena does not
necessarily represent a cost increase to BCH as a whole. It anticipated that Athena will
deliver downstream savings across the organisation, driven by the improved quality
and quantity of information available (quicker investigations, quicker data searching,
etc.). The value of this displacement and downstream savings will be determined by
the Athena Programme.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
38
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
If the cost uplift to deliver Athena (once it is offset by the factors noted above) is not
affordable, decisions will have to be made at a strategic level with regards to the extent
to which the three forces will comply with agreed Athena service standards.
It is not anticipated that changes in the costs to deliver Athena will materially change
the level of savings that Public Contact will deliver, as reported in this FBC; however,
the impact of any changes in Athena assumptions will need to be assessed on a case
by case basis.
Conclusion
It is recognised that the Athena-inclusive baseline presented above is not confirmed
and will be subject to further change over the coming months. It is therefore not
sufficiently mature to allow Public Contact to produce a cost forecast that can be used
for budgeting purposes. However, substantial work has been undertaken to-date,
allowing the Athena and Public Contact teams to agree a sensible baseline against
which to assess savings and the relative value for money of implementing a
collaborative Public Contact function.
It is clear that there will be a substantial uplift in cost in Public Contact as a result of
Athena, in order to drive savings in other areas of BCH. Maintaining IMUs in three
different forces will drive an even greater cost uplift:


An extraordinary recruitment exercise will be required to deliver the IMU
without collaboration (in each of the three forces), as there will no resources
released from contact management who could move to the IMU.
Substantial work has been undertaken to design an IMU within collaborated
Public Contact, reducing the uncertainty of the Athena programme, which
would need to be materially changed without collaboration.
Use of the Athena-adjusted baseline presented in this section helps ensure that Public
Contact Collaboration is considered on its merits in addressing the Athena uplift,
noting that Collaboration is not the cause of the uplift. Public Contact and Athena will
continue to work closely together to refine future cost estimates and ensure activities
are fully aligned and in lock-step as they proceed through implementation.
Delivery alignment of public contact services across the three forces
Public contact services are currently delivered under separate arrangements in each of
the three forces, serving the requirements of each individual police force. There are
varying degrees of alignment across different elements of service delivery, as Table 15
below demonstrates. This is expanded and explained fully in Appendix E.
Table 15: Degree of alignment across three forces
Area
Performance and
Measurement
Core Processes
Degree of
Alignment
Description
Moderate
As demonstrated by Table 11, the three forces use the same types of
key performance metrics, mostly focused on % of calls answered within a
set time limit for 999 and 101 calls. However, these performance
indicators are set at different levels across the three forces and there is
no consistency across BCH in terms of ability to meet these set metrics.
Low
Each of the three forces adopts a different approach to managing its call
volumes, which is reflected in call average handle times that vary
between 2 mins 36 secs (in Bedfordshire) to 13 mins 42 secs in
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
39
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Area
Degree of
Alignment
Description
Cambridgeshire. A similar level of variation can be seen in Crime
Recording AHTs, reflecting each force’s different approach, driven largely
by the performance metrics set.
Although each of the three forces delivers the same core functions, they
are structured differently in terms of the teams delivering these functions:
999
Calls
B
Staffing and
Organisation of
Core Functions
C
Dispatch
101
calls
Force Control Room
Force Control Room
Crime
Recording
Crime Bureau, Crime Service Team
and Crime Admin
Police Service Centre
Low
H
Crime Support/
Investigation
Force Control Room
Investigation
Management Unit
Crime Bureau
In addition, the forces see different levels of multi-skilling with
Hertfordshire, for example, seeing more multi-skilling across call handlers
and dispatchers than Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
Each of the forces operates significantly different shift patterns.
Supervisor ratios are similar in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire (at 1:7.2
and 1:7.9 respectively) whereas Cambridgeshire has a ratio of 1:10.4.
Support
Functions
Channels
Moderate
Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire have a similar approach to support
functions, using, for example, a centralised Resource Management Unit
(RMU) and with a separate Intelligence function outside Public Contact.
Hertfordshire, on the other hand, has dedicated functions within Public
Contact.
All three forces use the same tri-force collaborated Forensics Deployment
Unit (FDU).
High /
Moderate
Currently citizens across the three counties can only access key services
using the telephone, with the minor exception of citizens using the
Bedfordshire website, who are able to report hate crimes through an
online portal. There are a number of initiatives to provide consistent
access to key services online across BCH, being driven by the Self
Service project.
Business Needs
This section highlights the key ways in which the existing arrangements are not
adequate to meet the objectives and the strategic requirements of public contact. The
need to address this gap will drive the direction and decisions of the Public Contact
collaboration project. The table below shows the changes and key considerations
which are required to meet the project objectives.
Table 16: Changes needed and key considerations to meet objectives
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
40
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Objective
Existing Arrangements
Business Need
To effectively
manage
operational
risk
Operational risk is a major focus for
all forces with continuous efforts to
effectively manage risk (through
application of Threat Harm, Risk and
Vulnerability models) and reduce the
level of risk carried.
Any initiative should aim not increase
the level of operational risk carried
and should target risk reduction whilst
meeting other project goals.
BCH is running a number of major
concurrent change projects and
programmes, with substantial overlap
in scope and impact. This increases
the level of operational risk carried by
the forces.
The Public Contact project will incorporate key pieces
of guidance and policy that are aimed at ensuring
services do not carry unnecessary operational risk.
Further, the change will be deliverable within the
capabilities available to BCH – overambitious change
will result in elements of the operating model being
poorly established, weakening the coherency and
resilience of the whole.
Public Contact will be delivered in a coherent and
aligned way that mitigates the operational risk
inherent in such a change project, and supports other
initiatives in managing and reducing their risk and
uncertainty.
A driving principle that must underpin any future
Public Contact operating model is the requirement for
resilience.
Performance is mixed across the
three forces, although the majority of
targets are being met this year.
Citizens cannot access services
except via the telephone.
The Public Contact project must ensure it
understands citizen needs of public service and it
establishes channels, sets target performance levels,
re-writes processes and introduces an ICT solution
and staff management and development that are
directly targeted at addressing these needs.
This will cover all elements of police service that
public contact services can impact, not solely those
services that it directly delivers. For example, effective
management of calls can significantly improve the
service that local policing offer victims.
There is a limited amount of savings
that can be found without reducing
services or significantly changing the
way services are provided.
The disaggregation of public contact
service delivery across the three
forces does not allow for economies
of scale.
Solely offering access via the
telephone requires a large number of
FTEs.
If the operating model is not significantly updated and
channel shift enabled, BCH will not achieve the
required savings without significant loss in service.
In order to ensure the savings achieved are
sustainable without loss in service a structured and
considered approach is required to examine all
elements of the operating model and identify
opportunities for collaborative savings.
In addition, there is a need to ensure the project
drives quick wins where practical in order to meet the
timescales of savings targets.
The project will also need to take into consideration
the savings it can enable in local policing through
decreasing unnecessary call-outs and ensuring police
have an improved information base when they attend
calls. These are, however, dependent on the
decisions local forces make with regards to how to
best use the time released.
However, the achievement of savings, whilst a key
driver of the project, is a lower priority than effectively
managing operational risk and maintaining high
quality services.
To deliver a
high level of
public and
victim centred
services
To deliver up
to 30%
savings
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
41
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Objective
Existing Arrangements
Business Need
To create a
healthy
culture for
staff with
Continuous
Improvement
Staff generally identify as a member
of an individual force rather than as a
tri-force staff member.
Each force has a different training
approach and processes; the
introduction of increased collaboration
will introduce significant uncertainty
and change.
Forces operate under different
performance measurement
frameworks, driving different staff
cultures.
The Public Contact solution will need to incorporate
an approach to staff management and training, as
well as a performance framework, which drives a
continuous improvement culture.
Dependencies
In order to ensure the successful implementation of the Public Contact collaboration
project, an awareness of other trends, activities and projects in the business is
essential.
Athena Programme
Given that Public Contact is delivering a significant element of Athena scope, and in
line with advice provided in the Concerto Assurance Review of the Public Contact
Collaboration Project in April 2015, there is a driving need to effectively manage the
interdependencies between the two projects. Key areas of dependency and how they
are being managed are as follows:
Table 17: Athena interdependencies and interfaces
Area
Dependency
Management
Project
Management
and
Governance
The two initiatives must stay closely
aligned in all aspects of project
management and governance to ensure
visibility and effective management of all
interdependencies including:
Regular meetings between Project
Managers including mutual review
of risks, assumptions, issues and
decisions (RAID) logs and plans.
Athena resource seconded to
Public Contact project.
Representation at respective
Project / Programme Boards.





Short-term planning
Risks and issues
Assumptions
Decisions
Stakeholder management
Design
Athena and Public Contact TOM designs
are inextricably linked, reflected in the fact
that the Public Contact Collaboration
Project will deliver the IMU design and will
estimate the number of FTEs required to
support the new function.
Seconded Athena resource
focused on design review and
checking.
Regular engagement and
involvement of Design Team staff
from each project in the other’s
design.
Implementation
Athena and Public Contact Collaboration
implementation will overlap and will
impact a large number of the same staff.
There is a need for a coherent approach
to staff engagement, consultation and
Athena and Public Contact
Collaboration implementation plans
are being developed incorporating
key milestones and activities from
each other, to ensure they are
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
42
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Area
Dependency
training.
Athena implementation is planned for
January 2016. As a collaborated IMU
cannot be delivered by this time (see
Section 7.3.2 for more details), Athena
will need to design an interim solution.
Management
coherent.
This is explored in greater detail in
Section 7.3.2.
Finance
Athena implementation within BCH has
been agreed, regardless of Public Contact
Collaboration delivery. As a consequence,
the financial baseline against which Public
Contact will demonstrate savings must be
inclusive of the impact of Athena. Due to
the increased recording and data linking
requirements driven by Athena, this
baseline will be significantly higher than
current Public Contact function costs
(although the Strategic Decisions for
Athena Data Management paper
Appendix F highlights that this up-front
investment would result in opportunities
benefits elsewhere in BCH, outside Public
Contact, for example in the on-going
management of future investigations).
The approach to capture the
impact Athena on Public Contact
costs and the resultant impact is
presented in Section 3.4.2.
ICT
There is a need to ensure that the future
ICT solution is fully aligned across Public
Contact and Athena, that the project
understands where Athena will be the
main system for particular activities, key
system interface requirements etc.
Athena and Public Contact system
change will need to be fully aligned in
design and implementation and subject to
the same overall ICT change governance.
Mobilisation of Athena is also critical to
implementing economic, efficient and
effective capture of information by
frontline personnel.
Key Public Contact ICT resources
are also members of the Athena
Technical Design Authority, to
ensure full visibility and alignment.
Development of mobile
applications (e.g. the tuServ mobile
policing application) will be
informed jointly by the Athena and
Public Contact Project Teams with
one overarching governance body
for delivery of mobilisation.
Estates
The increased FTEs driven by Athena will
have an impact on the possible location
options for future collaborative Public
Contact and the significance of any wider
staff movements required.
Location considerations are driven
by FTE estimates, which result
from design-driven analysis.
Design alignment is discussed
above.
Other Dependencies
The table below aims to capture the wider projects and activities that are relevant
considerations in the delivery of the Public Contact collaboration project.
Table 18: Dependencies and other considerations
Project /
Activity
What it is
What it means
tuServ
An application for policing
Availability of applications on tuServ will be
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
43
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Project /
Activity
What it is
What it means
that is deployable on both a
range of Mobile devices and
also desktops.
critical to the Public Contact collaboration project
as it will facilitate the flow of information both to
and from the frontline thus improving
deployment, recording, investigation, updates
and victim care.
Mobile Devices
The physical roll-out of
hardware (Mobile Devices)
across BCH.
Officers will be able to perform more of their
daily activity outside of a station and in the
communities they serve, providing greater
efficiencies in activity, increased visibility and
public engagement.
Self-Service
Includes delivery of IVR;
Online Directory; Tracking
and Reporting functions
online.
Self-Service will drive changes in the way
demand reaches Public Contact and the way it
is managed. The new Public Contact functions
must be designed with the capability to manage
this change.
Workforce
Automation
Collaboration of HR / L&D
functions and bring in
modern ICT with improved
functionality
Will not impede the progress of the project but in
time will provide benefits to collaborated units,
especially in relation to duty management and
the processing of transactional people related
functions (e.g. expenses, overtime, etc.)
Local Policing
and Crime (B,
C and H)
Local change and
continuous improvement
programmes
There is a risk that significant divergence
between local change and Public Contact will
make it difficult for Public Contact to maintain
performance due to differing local policing and
crime needs and / or Public Contact TOM being
misaligned to local needs. Visibility and
involvement of change personnel in each other’s
programmes and projects will be essential to
address this significant risk which would
adversely affect benefits realisation if not
managed.
Joint Protective
Services (JPS)
Resources are deployed
across all three counties as
part of a joint tasking
process dependent on
threat and risk at the current
time.
The Public Contact collaboration project
presents a major opportunity to align command
and control processes which will assist JPS by
bringing in a common approach. Cross-border
operations will also be supported in a better
fashion as will forensics deployments.
Collaborated
Organisational
Support
A collaborated approach to
the majority of
organisational support
services and in particular for
Public Contact in relation to
information compliance and
the management of data
Collaboration of Organisational Support will
begin to align core back-office processes and
systems and this will be beneficial to provide
consistency to collaborated units.
Victims’ Hubs
Cambridgeshire have
established a Victims’ Hub,
which works alongside PSC,
IMU, CJU and Witness Care
to deliver support services
to victims of crime to help
them cope and recover from
the ordeals of crime.
Whilst not in scope, it provides victim services
and public touch-points. Consideration needs to
be given to the victim experience and how this
aligns with the Public Contact collaboration
project. This dependency also requires close
working with the Criminal Justice Collaboration
project which is looking at Witness Care.
Review of
Project aims to develop a
Currently each force is a separate employer with
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
44
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Project /
Activity
What it is
What it means
Terms &
Conditions
single set of terms and
conditions for police staff,
including pay and grading
across all three force, with a
common interpretation of
police regulations across all
three forces.
its own term and conditions for employees.
The implication for Public Contact is that there is
the potential for staff in the same location,
performing the same role, to have different
terms and conditions, be paid different salary
and allowances, have different levels of flexibility
that can be used in short notice changes to
shifts etc.
The Review of Terms & Conditions project will
ultimately address these potential issues. This
will be aided by common HR Policies and
procedures (many of which already exist) and a
common HR IT system.
Emergency
Services
Mobile
Communication
Project
(ESMCP)
The current national
“airwave” system is being
replaced in 2016/17 by a
new system currently called
ESN (emergency services
network). It will be
mandated by the Home
Office that all UK police
forces move onto this
system, however at time of
writing there are no
decisions on hardware or
software required for this
system. It is expected to
have a larger focus on
digital technology/
functionality.
BCH as a region are currently expected to move
to ESMCP at some stage in late 2016/early
2017. At this time it is not possible to predict the
cost or the impact that this change will have;
however, it will be a major change programme
that will be delivering at the same time as Public
Contact implementation and therefore the
projects must be aligned.
Scope (Including TOM Layer Definition)
The scope of the Public Contact project includes those elements of BCH directly
involved in delivering public contact services to citizens, and those that are sufficiently
closely related that inclusion in scope would create a more cohesive overall policing
service.
Ultimately, the functions in scope for Public Contact increase public safety through
communication, reassurance, responsiveness, incident management, crime
management, intelligence collection and information flows. The information flows from
Public Contact functions determine the effectiveness, economy and efficiency of all
that follows within the ‘whole system’ of local and specialist policing i.e. effectively
dealing with demand starts from the point of first contact.
In light of the above analysis, and in order to ensure the full scope is clearly articulated
and understood, the project scope can be presented or considered in terms of both the
functions it includes and the elements of the operating model it will seek to update.
From a functional perspective, the elements of existing functions (or functions that are
being created by other projects and programmes) that are in scope for Public Contact
can be considered in terms of: First Contact, Support First Contact and Support
Operations.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
45
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Table 19: Functions in scope for Public Contact
Function Group
Definition
Functions Included
First Contact
Functions to facilitate
direct interaction with
the citizens
Call Handling - All emergency, non-emergency and
switchboard call handling functions.
Digital - Function(s) that deliver and manage online,
social media and self service functions as an
alternative to requiring the public to make contact via
telephony.
Dispatch – Functions which arrange deployment of
local police on the ground to an incident or crime, using
talk groups to do so.
Support First
Contact
All operational
support to facilitate
contact management
through the First
Contact channels
Crime Recording & support functions - All Public
Contact crime investigation, management and admin
functions were initially in scope in order to identify the
future operating model. All functions were analysed
with the support and agreement of all three local
policing crime leads, and those existing functions that
do not form part of the future design have been
removed along with their associated budget.
The future Crime Recording model design now
incorporates (along with associated budget) the
functions of the initial crime being reported,
subsequently recorded and initial office-based enquires
being completed to enable further investigation of
finalisation of the crime. It also includes some admin
functions.
Intel - Functions which provide police with relevant fast
time intelligence.
Incident Resolution - Comprises Incident
Management and Incident Review Teams.
Digital Admin - Administrative support functions
facilitate citizen engagement through digital channels.
Support
Operations
Administrative
support functions to
support Public
Contact, dispatch
and crime recording
Resource Management – Supports Public Contact
functions in managing demand and assisting with
additional staffing requirements due to unexpected
events or incidents.
Administration - Provides support to a number of
functions across Public Contact.
Training - delivers bespoke training to Public Contact
staff in terms of technology and procedures to support
policing across the organisations.
Forensics Deployment Unit - Includes identification,
prioritisation and assigning of Scenes of Crime Officers
(SOCO) / Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) resources to
all incidents flagged. Coordinates required resources at
Homicide and other large scale or complex crime
scenes.
In addition to the functions above that either currently exist or are currently being
established outside of Public Contact Collaboration (such as digital functions), the
requirement to align with Athena introduces the delivery of an IMU into Public Contact
scope (as outlined in section 3.4.5).
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
46
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Out of scope functions include:


The quality compliance and audit functions which will be sited in a tri-force
approach to Information Management to maintain independence and integrity
from a scrutiny perspective;
Front Enquiry Offices but these may be indirectly affected by solutions which
are developed by this project. Front Enquiry Offices will form part of local
Police and Crime Plan / Estate Strategy considerations whilst recognising the
link into collaborative projects.
In order to drive change into the in-scope functions, the delivery of public contact
services is split into key ‘layers’, about which discrete decisions can be made in a
defined and logical order to generate an overall cohesive Target Operating Model.
These were agreed in OBC and are unchanged since that document was approved.
Table 20: Definition of operating model layers
Operating Model
Layer
Definition
1. Customer
The Customer layer will:





2. Channels
Define the customers of the Public Contact project as: the public; internal
customers; and external customers (e.g. agencies, other police forces, fire and
rescue services)
Define the scope of the citizens who may make solicited contact with the BCH
Public Contact function
Ensure the TOM follows a public / victim centric approach throughout
Suggest possible scope of internal customers
Suggest possible scope of external customers
The Channels layer will:


Explore public-facing telephony and digital channels to facilitate citizen contact
Explore how the channel shift will be made to happen and over what timeframe
is this expected to deliver
N.B. This only explores public/citizen facing channels
3. Services
The Services layer will:


4. Processes
The Processes layer will:



5. Performance
Framework
Set out to-be processes to support the aims of the Public Contact project and
deliver improved services and the right outcome for the public
Set up policies and business rules to govern performance delivery, for e.g.
including threat risk harm vulnerability ‘decisioning’ framework
Define how local policing (especially response), crime and joint protective
services processes will manage demand for services and interface with public
contact in a common way
The Performance Framework layer will:



6. Location
Outline which services are delivered through which channels, grouped into the
categories: 1) Crimes raised 2) Incidents reported 3) Other police matters and 4)
non-police matters
Review and understand current demand for services and recommend which
services could be delivered through telephony vs digital channels, partner
agencies, etc.
Explore how options will deliver against performance and service indicators for
public contact
Outline appropriate SLAs to drive high performance and ensure the right
outcome for the public
Differentiate between qualitative and quantitative measures (e.g. victim and
customer satisfaction vs average call handing time)
The Location Configuration layer will:
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
47
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
Operating Model
Layer
Configuration
Definition


7. People /
Organisation
The People / Organisation layer will:



8. ICT
Explore configuration and location options to ensure the Operation is organised
to achieve strategic objectives and support business processes
Highlight the current estates landscape and what options it presents / discounts
Outline the design and organisation structure including how functions and
capabilities will be configured e.g. multi-skilled versus specialism
Outline appropriate skills matrix and training to support the Organisation Design
Outline the optimal FTE requirements and resourcing options (e.g. shift
patterns) to meet demand
The ICT layer will:



Identify the citizen, process and performance information requirements to
support effective and efficient service delivery
Explore and specify functionality required, without detailing the solution
Outline common technology requirements with a single architecture, for all in
scope Public Contact functions
Benefits Overview
The benefits that the project will deliver to underpin each project objective have been
captured. These benefits form the basis of the project’s benefits management plan and
how the project will measure and track its performance once Public Contact project
has been implemented (see Section 7.3.5 in Management Case).
Table 21 presents the project benefits against the main objective they support,
although it should be noted that many of the benefits contribute to more than one
objective (for example, ‘Fewer record information errors’ also contributes to ‘High
levels of public and victim centred services’).
Table 21: Key project benefits
Objective
To effectively manage
operational risk
To deliver a high level of
public and victim centred
services
To create a healthy
culture for staff with
Continuous Improvement
To deliver up to 30%
savings
Benefits






Reduced number of unnecessary deployments
Fewer record information errors
More effective management of demand
Improved public satisfaction with first contact
Greater victim access to information
Better signposting to other agencies


Improved staff satisfaction
Increased flexibility to changes in demand




Increased public contact access through lower cost channels
Lower annual staff cost
More effective use of estates
(Reduced number of unnecessary deployments)
Risks Overview
The main risks associated with the Public Contact project are shown below, together
with the cause and potential effect should the risk materialise. The table is an extract
of the most significant risks from the project’s risk register (rated ‘High’). These risks
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
48
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
(along with the other risks in the register) form the basis of options risk appraisal in the
Economic Case (Section 4.5) and the approach to manage these risks is presented in
the Management Case (Section 7.3.4). The full risk register can be found at Appendix
G.
Table 22: Top project risks13
ID
Risk
Cause
Effect
PC_R05
Insufficient staff numbers
to deliver Public Contact
function
1) Poor communications / constantly
changing messages results in staff
uncertainty and results in staff losses
1) Service failure / reduced
performance levels
There is a risk that, due to
staff losses through
implementation or an inability
to recruit sufficient numbers
of skilled resources within
planned timescales, there is
not enough staff to deliver a
robust Public Contact
operating model.
2) Staff do not move to new location(s)
Insufficient financial
savings
1) Reduction in baseline as a result of
other initiatives which makes achieving
further savings more difficult (and
possibly unnecessary from a portfolio
perspective)
PC-R14
There is a risk that the Public
Contact project will not
achieve the target 30%
savings
3) Inability to recruit and train new staff
with appropriate skillsets
Athena impacts
significantly on design
work and planned
timescales
There is a risk that decisions
made on the scope of the
IMU and the requirement for
public contact functions to
perform data capture
processes on Athena, will
result in re-work of existing
design work, create workload
uplift and impact on
timescales.
PC-R23
Insufficient access to Local
Policing resource to assist
in defining resolution
demand
There is a risk that the lack of
input from Local Policing
results in demand being
defined based on a single
Public Contact led view
PC_R08
13
Implemented solution does
not meet the agreed design/
requirement
There is a risk that the final
Public Contact solution
delivered does not meet the
established and agreed /
design requirements
3) Excessive cost required to
maintain the function through
temporary staff etc.
4) Delayed implementation to
ensure sufficient staff available at
new location(s)
2) Channel shift / process improvement
savings are less than hoped
3) Level of risk required to enable further
savings not acceptable
PC-R18
2) Loss of internal and public
confidence
1) Project is forced to implement a
solution that finds more savings but
increases risk and decreases
savings
2) Further cuts are required in other
areas of BCH policing that have
negative impact on overall police
performance
1) Lack of visibility and understanding of
Athena system, processes and effort
estimates
1) Delays to the design of
processes, role profiles and
demand estimates
2) Significant dependency on external
decisions
2) Uplift of time taken to perform
tasks in scope across all public
contact roles
3) Mis-alignment of decision making
timelines between Athena & Public
Contact
4) Outstanding design impact questions
for Athena
3) Uncertainty around some areas
of function/ process design
4) Lack of clarity of cost of IMU
5) Lack of clarity of present roles which
will be absorbed into IMU
1) Ongoing work with Local Change
team has placed resource constraints on
Local Policing.
2) Resource constraint is due to high
volume of demand from other Change
Projects/ Programmes
1) Disconnect and lack of engagement
between those writing the requirement
(Design Team) and those delivering the
requirement (enablers and
implementation team)
2) Requirement is too ambitious and not
tempered by what is realistically
deliverable
3) Captured requirement is not fit-forpurpose and this is not noted until
implementation has started
1) Resolution demands defined by
Public Contact only and without
local policing having the ability to
inform approach
2) Possible negative impact on
opportunity to further reduce
downstream demand.
1) Performance may not meet
customer expectations as it focuses
in the wrong areas / ICT solution
does not deliver what is required
2) Processes are not optimised to
support the real requirements,
either generating risk to service
delivery or driving inefficiencies (or
both)
Mitigation of risks further detailed in the Management Case
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
49
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
ID
Risk
Cause
Effect
PC_R11
Post-implementation
benefits ownership and
realisation
The risk is that business
owners do not take
responsibility for driving out
benefits once the solution is
implemented
1) The wrong benefits are defined, which
cannot be measured and tracked or drive
the wrong behaviours
2) Lack of business ownership for
implemented changes / benefits
3) Business-as-usual benefits processes
are not fit-for-purpose
1) Savings targets are not met
2) Quality and performance do not
improve and may even decline
3) Loss of stakeholder confidence
1) Implementation risks around staff
satisfaction and moral are realised,
which causes high staff turnover
PC_R28
Staff Turnover increases
immediately following
implementation
There is a risk that the
increase in staff turnover
during an implementation
destabilises a collaborated
function
1) De-stabilisation of collaborated
function
2) Increase of cost due to repeat
training
3) Negative impact on services
provided
4) Insufficient staff to cater to
demand
1) Athena implementation risks are
realised
2) Changes to Athena scope of delivery
PC_R30
Delay to Athena
implementation
There is a risk that the
Athena programme
timescales are delayed (as a
result of their key risks being
realised), which could have a
knock-on effect on Public
Contact delivery
1) Timescales for Athena enabled
IMU collaboration are not realised
2) Collaboration cannot be phased
as planned due to changes in
Athena timelines
3) Delays to Public Contact
implementation to ensure alignment
with Athena and coherency going
forward
This Strategic Case sets out the strategic context and the drivers for change that
underpin the Public Contact collaboration project. There is a compelling strategic case
for changing the way the Public Contact function is operated:







There are substantial opportunities for economies of scale (i.e. more for less)
and utilisation of modern technology (i.e. channel shift) to transform the way
service is delivered to improve the experience for the public and to deliver
enhanced victim satisfaction the BCH collaboration.
Redesigned processes will improve demand management and management
of operational risk and a tri-force collaborative culture of continuous
improvement will mean ongoing benefits realisation.
There is an opportunity to increase operational resilience and responsiveness
arising from collaborating a mission critical high-volume operational support
function.
There is an opportunity to provide a platform for continuous improvement
across a tri-force function where a common culture of delivery can be
established across the workforce.
Without collaborating Public Contact there are limited opportunities to achieve
material cashable or non-cashable savings in the function due to the
complexity in driving coherent change across the three forces.
The requirements of the Athena Programme will be very difficult to manage
without efficiencies to offset the uplift and a tri-force approach is more
effective than three individual force approaches.
There is a need to better align with and support national cost reduction and
collaboration agendas for policing, as well as Police and Crime Plans for
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.
The next section considers the Economic Case which explains the approach decisions
that have underpinned the Target Operating Model (TOM) design and the resultant
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
50
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
STRATEGIC CASE
recommended option for implementation. Ultimately, it demonstrates that the
proposed TOM offers value for money against economic, qualitative (i.e. performance
against project objectives and critical success factors) and risk appraisal.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
51
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
This Economic Case determines the best value for money option to be implemented for
Public Contact, which is then taken forward for further consideration in the Financial,
Commercial and Management cases. It focuses on the main decision as to whether or
not a single collaborated Public Contact function should be established, to
support Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire forces and, if so, what the
operating model for this function should be.
To that end, the Case:


a)
Reiterates the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) that were presented in the OBC,
and which have driven the design of the collaborative Public Contact Target
Operating Model (TOM);
Presents a number of key decision areas to enable the project to continue to
implementation:
Decision Area 1: Target Operating Model
i)
b)
Decision Area 2: Evaluation Timescales
i)
c)
Presents the TOM design and provides a summary of the analysis
undertaken, the supporting documentation produced and the review
and assurance completed that underpin it;
Discusses the time period over which this FBC is evaluated, driven by
the high degree of uncertainty and change across BCH at this time;
Decision Area 3: Location and Configuration
i)
Presents the analysis that has been undertaken to assess possible
locations and configurations of locations in order to determine the
recommended option;
ii) Includes an assessment of savings as a result of delivering the new
Public Contact Collaboration TOM compared to continuing as-is;
d)
Decision Area 4: Implementation Planning (including HR Considerations)
i)
Outlines the phasing and timing of project implementation, and the
impact this has on timescales to deliver benefits, payback and NPV;
ii) Highlights those changes that will be delivered as part of Public
Contact Collaboration Project implementation, and those which are
considered out of scope for implementation but may be considered at a
later date (e.g. changing the employment model or harmonising terms
and conditions);
e)
Decision Area 5: Platform for the Future
i)


Outlines initiatives that have the potential to drive future savings,
outside of current project scope but which can build on its platform;
Summarises the sensitivity of the analysis to changes in key assumptions and
variables;
Recommends a way forward, the commercial, financial and implementation
implications of which are outlined in the remainder of this FBC.
The table below shows the main factors taken into account in appraising different Public
Contact options. These Critical Success Factors (CSFs) represent the key outputs that
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
52
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
an option should produce or characteristics that it should include in order to deliver the
project benefits and objectives.
Table 23: Critical Success Factors and definitions
CSF
Definition
The extent to which the option:
Efficient and
effective common
business
processes



Is supportive of innovative business process to provide the right resource
at the right time
Promotes first point of contact resolution with work only being transferred
where Threat / Harm / Risk / Vulnerability model deems appropriate
Allows the Public Contact function to deliver the new processes required
by the Athena business model in a coherent manner
The extent to which the option:

Appropriately
skilled, empowered
and supported staff
Industry standard
and fit-for-purpose
technology
Enables channel
shift
Strategic and
regulatory
alignment
Ensures staff have efficient working practices, in line with some of the
best within the service and industry
 Ensures the operator has the authority and support to make the
appropriate treatment decision for the contact
 Ensures the operator is able to quickly access the appropriate response
to serve the needs of BCH Citizens
 Ensures there are sufficient, capable staff for an Athena IMU
The extent to which the option:


Provides the correct modern technological enablers to facilitate a positive
public contact experience
Considers technology enhancements that provide control room operators
with the capability to take the most appropriate actions and ensure
excellent public and victim services
The extent to which the option:
 Provides a range of channels through which citizens can access support
The extent to which the option:






Complies with regulation
Is in line with the Public Contact Project mandate
Is in line with other key elements of national, regional and local strategies
Underpins and supports local policing and Police and Crime Plan delivery
Supports strategically aligned projects
Delivers an IMU that meets Athena Programme requirements
Fit-for-purpose
performance
framework
The extent to which the option:
Scalability potential


Provides motivation to operators and managers to drive high performance
in meeting citizens’ Public Contact needs
The extent to which an option:
Is scalable for future expansion to support complementary policing and
wider Public Sector services that are not within the current scope of the
Public Contact project
The extent to which an option:
Ease and speed of
delivery


Requires relatively minor and uncontroversial change and therefore there
is less risk of issues in gaining agreement across stakeholders and less
implementation risk
Can be implemented relatively quickly without additional risk
These CSFs are largely unchanged from the OBC, however, the elements of the CSFs
that support Athena programme capability have been explicitly identified.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
53
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
At the end of the Economic Case the FBC will highlight how the proposed collaborated
TOM and the status quo perform against these CSFs, in order to demonstrate the
relative merits of a collaborated function.
A key focus of activity since OBC has been developing the TOM for the future
collaborated Public Contact function. This TOM:



Sets out the blueprint for future state of collaborated BCH Public Contact
operations;
Establishes the key capabilities and functions within the future model;
As the blueprint, provides the key steer for the next level of detailed process
and organisation design that will define how and who will deliver the capabilities
articulated within the TOM.
The proposed TOM for Public Contact Collaboration considers the end to end capability
required to manage demand for services from the Public, Partners and Internal
customers, focusing on eight ‘layers’ as defined in Section 3.4.6:








Customer (public, partners and internal demand)
Channels
Services
Processes
Performance Framework
Location / Configuration
People / Organisation
ICT
A decision is required on whether the TOM design is sufficiently mature and aligned with
operational and business needs to allow the project to proceed with implementation.
To that end, this section provides a summary of the customer, channels, services,
processes, performance framework, ICT and people / organisation layers of the TOM,
which are underpinned by greater detail in the FBC appendices. It also presents the
activity that has been undertaken to review and validate the TOM with key stakeholders
from across the organisation, incorporating their feedback into the design.
Location / configuration is considered separately and in greater detail in Section 4.5 due
to its complexity and sensitivity. The FTE and financial analysis within this section
therefore excludes estates costs.
The phasing of the delivery of savings and implementation costs are not presented in
this section as it focuses on the end state once the TOM has been fully delivered. The
phasing of benefits and therefore the net present value (NPV) and payback of the
project are presented in Section 4.6, which focuses on implementation planning and
phasing.
TOM Design Documents
The key principle driving the design of the Public Contact TOM is that the function will
effectively respond to emergency and non-emergency contact, applying consistent
decisioning processes, and increase early resolution managed within Public Contact
thereby avoiding unnecessary deployments and delivering downstream operational
benefits.
The key features of the TOM are presented in Table 24.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
54
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Table 24: Key features of Public Contact TOM
Area
Features
Contact Management
Focus on the citizen experience




Investigations
Management and
Resolution



Local Policing
Early interventions by contact operators provides assurance and an
improved citizen experience with fewer handoffs
Operators control the contact process to deliver operational efficiencies
Standardised operating procedures and decision models to improve process
handle times and outcome consistency
Focus on first point of contact (FPOC) resolution based on clear policies
around police and non-police business
Dedicated function focused on Athena investigations as well as incident
resolution
Provides robust upfront review and assessment of incidents and
investigations
Aims to effectively resolve cases and minimise the need for the deployment
of downstream resource
Reduce the number of unnecessary deployments and allocations

The TOM is based on effective decisioning and early resolution of incidents
and investigations and therefore only deploys or allocates when necessary
The TOM design comprises a number of detailed design documents available in the
appendices as outlined in Table 25.
Table 25: List of detailed TOM design documents
Appendix
Document
Description
I
TOM Summary
Sets out the blueprint for future state of part of
the whole of the Organisation's operations.
Establishes the key capabilities and functions
within the future model – therefore focuses on
what the future model will deliver and not how
this will be delivered.
Provides the basis for lower levels of detailed
process and organisation design that define how
and who will deliver the capabilities articulated
within the TOM.
J
User Requirements (ICT, MI, HR,
Location)
A description of the detailed requirements
underpinning the business requirements at a
level of detail to support ICT solution design,
estates configuration design etc.
K
Level 1 and 2 To-Be Process Maps
Includes:



L
Balanced Scorecard Template
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
2x L1 process map for future design of Public
Contact Management and Support Functions.
Multiple L2 process maps with lower level of
detail, decision points and handoffs for all to-be
Public Contact processes.
Process Inventory which captures all as-is
processes recorded, all to-be processes
designed, how they relate to each other and any
outstanding process design questions.
Includes:
55
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE

Draft high level set of quantitative and qualitative
KPIs that will be introduced to help manage
Public Contact for each framework.
The following sections of the FBC summarise some of the key features of the TOM,
captured in detail in these appendices:







Functional view;
Process view (and resultant demand);
Key elements of the performance framework;
Principle features of the ICT solution;
Staffing requirements;
Citizen View;
Frontline Officer and Staff View.
Functional view
The functional view in Figure 6, breaks down the key functional areas within Public
Contact (Manage Contact, Manage Process and Support Functions), and the main
responsibilities within each functional area.
Figure 6: Public Contact TOM
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
56
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Table 26 provides a summary of the functionality within each area and how they relate to
the customer, channels, service and process layers of the TOM.
Table 26: Functionality of Public Contact TOM
Functional
Area
Capability / Op Model
Layer
Services: defines the key
services that will be provided
by Public Contact
Customers: the initiators
and recipients of services
provided by Public Contact
Channels: the mechanism
through which we will receive
request for service and
provide updates
Manage
Contact
Decisioning: the
assessment model that
underpins the initial review
and subsequent decision
regarding the most
appropriate response to a
demand for service
THRIIVES Outcome: when
the decision model is
applied, a combination of
factors will determine the
most appropriate way to
manage the process for a
request for service. The
Public Contact Model has 4
high level outcomes.
Manage
Process
Resolution and
Investigation: capabilities
required to investigate,
resolve or allocate an
investigation or incident.
Resolution will focus on
trying to resolve nonemergency incidents to
reduce downstream demand
on local policing resources
Manage Process: sets out
the high level steps to deliver
the required service. The
process may result in a
resolution with no further
action or for allocation for
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Functionality




Respond to and manage demand for emergency and nonemergency services
Provide signposting, advice and updates to citizens and
internal customers

The public (individuals and businesses)
Partners (other Blue Light services, public sector partners
and other law enforcement services, health)
Internal: other functions/ teams within the Force





Telephony (reporting/ updates / information)
Webchat (information / reporting)
Online self service (reporting / updates /information)
Email / post ( information / reporting)
Emergency SMS

THRIIVES is used to support decision making and
considers the Threat, Risk, Harm, Investigation,
Intelligence Vulnerability, Engagement and Special
circumstances elements of the specific situation at the
time of contact / report. The THRIIVES model is fully
explained in APPENDIX I
Decision outcome: the outcome of the THRIIVES process
will determine the next action applied to manage all
requests for service









First Point of Contact Resolution / Signposting – no risk
contact that requires no further action by BCH Police
Investigation / resolution required – this relates to Athena
investigations which need to be reported, but where initial
attendance is not required. It also relates to STORM
incidents that are deemed suitable for further desk-based
resolution.
Appointments – where attendance is required and can be
arranged for a specific time
Emergency attendance – where THRIIVES indicates an
immediate or prompt attendance is required and an
appointment is not appropriate
Dispatch (Command & Control) – will focus on the
allocation and management of emergency incidents.
Resolution and Investigation – will manage the reporting,
investigation and resolution Athena investigations and
incidents
Appointment management – provides support to update
and cancel appointments when required
Dispatch: ability to review the incident, dispatch local
police resources, control the incident and provide updates
to attending teams. The Dispatch team will also manage
the slow time requests for Forensic Deployments from a
dedicated desk, via a multi-skilled agent
57
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Functional
Area
Capability / Op Model
Layer
further investigation.
Resolution or allocation:
Sets out the outcome of the
process management
discussed above
Functionality

Resolution / Investigation: the high level process is
standardised as the following common set of activities are
completed (the detail may differ depending on the service
type): assess, record, investigate, resolve, allocate.

As a result of the management of incidents and/ or
investigations, a number of actions may be taken. Where
possible, we will resolve without deployment, realising
downstream benefits (e.g. saving officer attendance time).
If a SOCO is required as part of an investigation, this will
be requested through the Forensic Deployment resource
in Dispatch
Where there are proportionate further lines of enquiry, the
DBE team will complete a high level enquiry to determine
if there and will also allocate investigations as appropriate
The resolution of STORM Incidents will follow a similar
process to DBE -. Operators in the Resolution Team will
access STORM records, where a decision is made by the
call handler that a phone based resolution is possible
Where further investigation is not appropriate, or there is
a specific need according to THRIIVES, the investigation
or incident will be allocated to local policing




Support Public Contact:
describes the set of
capabilities needed to
directly or indirectly enable
the delivery of the Public
Contact Model. This includes
wider operational support
and process related support.
Support
Functions

Athena Data Management and Investigation Support:
a)
Will manage the allocations process for officer-reported
crime and non-crime investigations, where the attending
officer requires an allocation to another Unit.
b) Will manage outcomes review and finalisation for all
crimes. The current assumption is that the IMU will
manage outcomes 1 to 18. Detailed design may result in
a shorter list of outcomes being managed by the IMU
 Resource Management: is delivered through the ability to
plan, schedule and manage the resources required to
deliver the TOM.
 Performance Management: is the data and reporting
processes needed to monitor and improve the
performance of the TOM
 Training (Knowledge Management) / Coaching: provides
the skills investment and knowledge to deliver the
expected service quality within the TOM. Knowledge
management is an especially key capability to provide
users with the right information to deliver.
 Digital Channel Management: provides oversight of the
digital channels (online / webchat ) performance and
roadmap for future developments
 Admin: The Admin function has been designed to
incorporate the key responsibilities of administrative posts
across BCH Public Contact. This function will include PA
support.
All linking and QA for officer-reported investigations will be managed within Local
Policing. The recording and linking of further updates to ongoing investigations will also
be managed within Local Policing.
Process view
The Public Contact Design Team has developed process maps at three different levels
of detail to date:
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
58
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE



Level 0 – provides the highest level, end-to-end view of the full Public Contact
process to ensure all elements of Public Contact are mapped;
Level 1 – provides a functional level view of processes, by Call Handling,
Dispatch, and IMU and Support;
Level 2 – provides a lower level of detail, showing handoffs between functions /
teams / departments using swim lanes, including decision points.
Level 3 processes, which will be developed post-FBC will capture sub-processes and
detail including specific systems used.
The Level 0 process is presented in Figure 7 with further information available in
Appendix I. Levels 1 and 2 are available in Appendix K.
Figure 7: Level 0 process
The process development, along with analysis of current call demand has allowed the
Project Team to develop an informed set of evidence-based assumptions and analysis
to determine future demand. These are available at Appendix H. These ultimately drive
FTE requirements (see Table 29).
Key elements of performance framework
The collaboration of public contact functions across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire (BCH) will deliver a number of benefits but will also introduce a complex
multi-facetted environment that requires a considerable focus to manage the service
provided to the Public and Partners of the three Forces.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
59
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Operational Performance Management is a deliberate approach to the delivery,
monitoring and improvement of the key objectives of the organisation. The collaborated
Public Contact function will have a number of internal and external stakeholder and
business critical functions that must be carefully managed to ensure delivery standards
are maintained and improved over time.
To that end, the collaborated Public Contact function will develop a ‘Balanced
Scorecard’ approach to manage performance:





This will provide a simple pictorial view of the most important performance
measures across 4 key dimensions (risk management, effective customer
service, operational efficiency and continuous improvement) providing a
balanced view.
It will be based on both qualitative and quantitative measures, providing a
holistic view of performance, providing a check of progress against key
measures and driving corrective or reinforcing action as appropriate.
It will change over time as the organisation and strategy change.
A dashboard will be developed, which is an aggregation of granular key
performance indicators (KPIs) and provides different levels of operational
information.
The Benefits Realisation workstream have developed a set of key outcomes/
benefits expected from the business transformation that would be delivered
through Public Contact collaboration. It is noted that these to some degree
align with the key strategic measured in the balanced scorecard, demonstrating
an alignment between what the operating environment will measure and
monitor and the benefits that will be expected as a result of change.
A template balanced scorecard has been generated, which will be fully populated with
tactical and operational KPIs and agreed post-FBC. More detail on the approach to
develop the balanced scored are available in the TOM Summary at Appendix I and the
template balanced scorecard is at Appendix L.
Over the course of development of the TOM, the two KPIs that have the most significant
impact on resourcing and performance have been agreed by JCOB and SAS:


90% of 999 calls will be answered in 10 seconds;
80% of 101 calls will be answered in 30 seconds.
Principle features of the ICT solution
The Public Contact Design Team has captured detailed requirements (see Appendix J)
for an ICT solution that will support the TOM functions and processes. In addition, an
overarching vision and key principles have been agreed to underpin development of the
ICT solution (see Appendix M) focused on:




Delivering the right service to the public / customers;
Enabling service deliver;
Managing risk;
Cost effective delivery.
Key requirements and features of the ICT landscape in order to support the TOM are:


Early implementation of online reporting with more integrated capability
delivered in the target state (supports straight throughput processing and self
service). Provides capability for both crime and non-crime reporting.
Wider choice of online channels to shift demand away from telephony
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
60
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE








Contact Management System/ Customer Relationship Management that is fully
integrated with contact technology to record data, supported decision making
by providing staff operators with a view of historical contact
Aggregated search to interrogate all legacy BCH systems
Integration between the Customer Management Solution, Athena and Storm is
required to reduce double keying
Smart Storm will be used to create appointments
Implementation of the same STORM command and control, mapping and
airwave/ telephony technology as per current capability.
Note: Airwave will be replaced in 2017 and the solution architecture is required
to support the future ESN
The tuServ mobile solution is the interface between the IMU and local policing
Common ICT landscape to allow common reporting
On this basis, BCH ICT have identified the key systems and types of systems that must
be in place to fulfil this requirement, as outlined in Figure 8:



Green items are those that require no change to support collaborative Public
Contact;
Amber items are systems that currently exist within BCH but will require
changes to support collaborative Public Contact; and
Red items do not exist within BCH and will need to be procured.
Figure 8: ICT Solution Concept Design14
14
SMS – Short Message Service (text messaging); IVR – Interactive Voice Recognition; ICCS - Integrated Communication
Control System; CCTV – Closed-Circuit Television; ESN - Emergency Services Network (the planned replacement for Airwave);
CRM – Customer Relationship Management; PNC - Police National Computer; HR – Human Resources
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
61
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
The implementation costs and future running costs of ICT provision to support the TOM
are presented in Table 27. Overall future TOM ICT operating costs to support Public
Contact do not materially change from the baseline; however, the additional up-front
investment allows for increases in productivity and efficiency within the function.
Table 27: TOM ICT implementation and operating costs
Cost
(£m)
Cost type
Implementation Costs of new ICT
1.1
Annual Operating Costs of future ICT within TOM
(including legacy and new systems)
0.9
There are a number of benefits provided through the adoption of the ICT solution, not
only for the public, but also for frontline personnel as well as Public Contact personnel.
From the public perspective the ICT solution will allow delivery of a more efficient and
effective customer-centred experience through systems such as self-service channels
and a contact management system. As an example, the former provides the citizen with
more digital choice when reporting to us, the latter allows their needs to be assessed
and addressed more effectively as a result of caller history and information being
displayed in one place. This solution, along with an enterprise search function across all
ICT systems will also allow call operators to make more informed decisions in faster
timescales, contributing to improved management of operational risk. There is clear
further benefit here not only to the public when receiving the service, but also to the
frontline personnel through effective dispatch and deployment.
Integrated input and search systems will provide more opportunity for resolution of
incidents within the Public Contact environment, thus contributing to downstream
savings by preventing unnecessary deployments. Where deployment is required, timed
appointments will provide a more focussed customer service, with AM/PM appointments
allowing for work to be planned into diaries more effectively. Emergency attendance will
be managed though the dispatch function using the existing STORM Command and
Control system, and attending officers will be able to input information to police systems
using a shared front-end platform – tuServ.
The requirement and approach to update existing ICT to enable collaborative Public
Contact collaboration is further explored in the Commercial Case.
People / organisation (including staffing requirement)
The staffing requirements for the future TOM are determined from the requirements in
terms of skills and numbers to deliver the agreed processes. In order to develop the
staffing requirements the following approach has been taken:


The estimated volume and AHT were translated into demand over a day based
on current demand profiles;
The daily demand profile was converted to an hourly FTE requirement using
Impact 360;
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
62
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE



The hourly FTE requirement was applied against potential shift patterns15
(proposed by Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire workforce planning experts) to
determine the overall FTE requirement;
FTE costs were calculated using a number of assumptions including allocation
of roles to three forces, indicative mid-point grades for individual roles, salaries
and shift premia terms and conditions;
A vacancy factor was applied to FTE costs in line with the standard BCH
business case methodology, which reduces staff costs overall by 2.7%.
The detailed assumptions and approach are available in Appendix H. The analysis is
based on 24 hour running of all elements of the TOM except the Resolution Team and
support functions. It should be noted that, once the TOM is fully operational, there is
potential with two sites to close one centre overnight. This will be explored as part of a
shift review in implementation.
The change in FTEs as a result of the TOM is presented in Table 28. This shows the
FTEs grouped by high level role over a number of key phases:




The current baseline before any changes to the Public Contact function either
as a result of Athena or collaboration;
The FTEs required to deliver the scope of Athena that sits within the function;
The number of FTEs required at implementation of collaboration (March 2017),
allowing for an uplift in staff to ensure that operations can continue through the
disruption of implementation and adoption of new processes and ICT;
Final number of FTEs required to run the Public Contact function once the
changes have settled and become business-as-usual, with reductions driven
through improved processes and economies of scale. These reductions will
occur gradually between March 2017 and March 2018.
Table 28: FTE changes in TOM by role
Baseline
excl.
Athena
Baseline
Incl.
Athena
Collaborated TOM
(at
Implementation)
Collaborated
TOM (at End
State)
Movement from Baseline
Incl Athena to
Collaborated End State
Management
(incl. Oscar 1,
excl
Supervisor)
35.2
35.2
26.0
25.0
-10.2
Supervisors16
69.2
75.4
63.5
50.5
-24.9
Operators17
549.5
605.5
659.6
614.0
8.5
Support Staff
(RMU,
Training,
Admin etc)
20.9
25.9
19.0
12.0
-13.9
Total Staff
674.8
742.0
768.1
701.5
-40.5
Role
15
The shift patterns used to underpin the modelling do not represent final shift patterns that will be used
by the future function. They will inform a future shift review but will be adjusted to ensure full compliance
with HR policies and based on the result of collective and individual consultations. However, they have
been agreed by the Public Contact Design Team to provide a reasonable view of the cost of shifts to
support the FBC and to allow for shift sensitivity analysis.
16
Includes both staff supervisors and supervising officers (Sergeants)
17
Includes both staff operators and officers (Constables)
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
63
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
These FTE will form part of the new organisation structure outlined in Figure 9. This
shows a number of interim roles that will exist in the early months (and before
implementation) of the collaborated function, de-risking implementation.
Figure 9: TOM organisation structure
As demonstrated in Table 28 and Table 29, as well as driving an overall reduction in
FTE the TOM allows for a decrease in the police officer requirement compared to staff
and the proportion of managers and supervisors compared to operators, driving further
cost reductions.
It is proposed to retain a number of police officer roles in the new structures where their
specific policing skills and experiences are essential to meet service requirements. This
is a reduction on current strength, but will still provide an opportunity for police officers to
continue to support Public Contact activities.
Currently the three forces have a number of restricted or recuperative officers posted
into their respective Public Contact functions; the proportions are as follows (actual
FTEs in brackets):



Bedfordshire 50% (9),
Cambridgeshire 24% (11)
Hertfordshire 48% (22)
It is likely that, provided the officer can demonstrate they meet the entry requirements for
the role and hold the requisite skills and experience, that Public Contact can continue to
support those officers who require either longer term or more temporary
adjustments. Such considerations will be based on individual circumstances.
Table 29: FTE requirements for TOM
Grade
Baseline
incl. Athena
% of FTEs
End State
% of FTEs
Movement
96.5
13%
76.0
11%
-20.5
Officers
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
64
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Baseline
incl. Athena
% of FTEs
End State
% of FTEs
Movement
Staff
645.5
87%
625.5
89%
-20.1
TOTAL
742.0
100%
701.5
100%
-40.5
Grade
The TOM allows for a reduction in FTEs whilst increasing performance in line with
agreed levels with the aim of strengthening support to front line policing and generating
downstream savings.
Table 30 provides an indication of the costs of the different Public Contact functions in
the new TOM. The exact split of FTEs and cost into different functions will be confirmed
through detailed design. The TOM includes an investment in Desk Based Enquiries and
Resolution Team resources, in order to drive efficiencies in local policing (discussed in
the next Section).
Table 30: Indicative function staff / officer costs
Function (£m, 15/16 prices)
Baseline
Including
Athena
Collaborated
TOM
Change
Management (incl. Oscar 1, excl Supervisor)
2.2
1.6
-0.6
FCR - Contact
10.0
7.3
-2.7
FCR - Dispatch
7.6
7.1
-0.6
IMU - Athena Scope (Recording and Linking)
7.4
5.8
-1.6
IMU - DBE
0.0
1.3
1.3
IMU - Resolution Team
0.0
0.6
0.6
Other
1.0
0.6
-0.4
Total Staff / Officer Costs
28.2
24.3
-3.9
Anticipated downstream savings
The Resolution Centre and Desk Based Enquiries (DBE) included within the TOM
represent an investment aimed at driving downstream cost savings and improving
operational performance by resolving more incidents upfront, improving customer
satisfaction when suitably resolved at point of report, whilst reducing downstream
deployment of operational resources.
The approach to determining the demand that could be managed by the Resolution
Team was as follows:


A statistically valid sample size of 675 STORM incidents across all three forces
was selected and reviewed by the Design Team by applying THRIVE as the
decision model, determine whether the incident could be resolved by the
Resolution Team or DBE;
The sample data indicated that 11% of incidents could be resolved with no
further deployment needed.
This analysis indicates that there are considerable potential downstream savings as a
result of investment in Public Contact, as indicated in Table 31.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
65
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Table 31: Downstream savings
Assumption Description
Assumption
Number of STORM incidents identified that could be resolved by the Resolution
Team, avoiding deployment
46,150
Number of investigations that could be resolved, but will be resolved by the DBE in
the IMU rather than the Resolution Team as they relate to Athena incidents
34,815
Cost of 1 deployment (proxy cost of £100 for a low risk deployment, used by
Surrey and Sussex forces)
Downstream savings (15/16 prices)
£100
£8.10m
It should be noted that these savings are only cashable if subsequent strategic decisions
are taken by Police and Crime Commissioners with Chief Constables in relation to Local
Policing resources in the three Force areas. If the decision is taken to maintain officer
numbers the value of this benefit will be seen in officer time released to support more
operationally critical activities.
In addition, it has been assessed that approximately 9,000 crimes could be resolved
through DBE, rather than needing to be passed for Crime Investigation. The costs of
each of these investigations has not been estimated but it is likely to be higher than the
£100 deployment cost, and will be saved as a result of the DBE.
Citizen View
In addition to the financial savings, the TOM offers a number of unquantified benefits.
These include benefits to the public who will use the service such as:




An improved citizen experience as the project has a transformational focus on
utilising new channels which are easier to adopt across three forces at the
same time as opposed to individually.
Improved public safeguarding as a result of implementing key elements of the
Athena Business Model within a collaborated function which will also improve
data quality and information flows resulting in better decision-making.
More prompt response to non-emergency calls, as TOM FTE requirements are
estimated based on demand, addressing current under-resourcing issues.
Continuous improvement driven in the quality of the service offered to the
public, as well as financially.
Frontline Officer and Staff View
The TOM has also be designed to provide benefits to Public Contact staff and officers:



Staff will be motivated by the opportunity to provide a better service to the
public by offering alternative digital channels.
Staff will have access to information via CRM and Athena that empowers staff
to make more informed decisions thereby providing a better public service
A comprehensive demand led approach has been used to understand how
many staff are required to meet demand, based on a pragmatic view of
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
66
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE


operational productivity. This provides a more realistic level of staffing that
meets demand from the public, but is also operationally robust, presenting less
operational demand on staff to do more.
Standardised processes (for example THRIIVES for decision making) have
been developed which, with access to Force specific policy information, provide
staff with the required support to manage contact and respond to different
policies across BCH with ease.
Staff will be empowered with the opportunity to own and drive the delivery of
change in a collaboration environment.
Review and Validation of TOM
The TOM design has followed a rigorous review cycle through a number of key
operational practitioners as detailed in Table 32 below and detailed in the Business
Design Authority Governance pack (see Appendix N).




The initial design was reviewed and challenged internally by the Design Team.
Once a draft design was produced, this was presented to the Business Design
Authority, attended by the Operational Leads for Contact and Crime.
A number of design challenges were posed from this group which were referred
to the Chief Constables for each Force to provide a design steer.
Agreement was reach on the outstanding decisions and these were
incorporated into the TOM design (see Appendix O for specific decisions)
Table 32: Approach to TOM design and review
Conclusion and recommendation
The TOM design has been developed to a point that allows decisions on location and
implementation planning to be taken at FBC.

Customers (public, partners and internal) and their service requirements are
defined;
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
67
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE




Channels currently available for customers to access Public Contact, and the
impact (particularly on future demand) and timing of new channels being
introduced, have been assessed;
Processes have been designed to a sufficient level of maturity to drive demand
modelling (and, ultimately, staff and cost requirements);
Key performance metrics that drive FTE requirements are agreed; and
Future ICT solution is sufficiently defined to estimate operating and
implementation costs and timing.
The impact of the TOM on costs (excluding estates impact, which is explored in Section
4.5) is presented in Table 33.
Table 33: Savings as a result of collaborated TOM (including potentially cashable and
non-cashable savings)
Baseline
costs incl.
Athena
TOM (at
March
2017)
Savings /
Costs at
Impl.
TOM (at
March 2018)
Savings /
Costs at
End State
% Change
at End
State
Staff / Officers
28.2
26.1
-2.1
24.3
-3.9
-14%
Estates
0.9
0.7
-0.2
0.6
-0.3
-33%
ICT
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.9
-0.1
-7%
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.0
0%
TOTAL PUBLIC CONTACT
COSTS AND SAVINGS (excl.
Estates)
30.9
28.6
-2.3
26.7
-4.3
-14%
£m, 15/16 prices
Downstream savings
0.0
-8.1
SAVINGS AS A RESULT OF
PUBLIC CONTACT (excl.
Estates)
-2.3
-12.4
The TOM offers substantial opportunities for savings both within Public Contact and in
wider policing. Furthermore, the savings as a result of the new TOM play a key role in
offsetting the increase in costs driven by Athena and making that programme more
affordable.
There is still some work remaining to fully develop the TOM:




The final ICT solution will be developed through the procurement process and
with the final, selected supplier;
Fully detailed processes will be developed once the project has further clarity
on the detailed ICT solution;
Detailed role descriptions and their implications for staff relocation and
redundancy will be developed once the location and configuration are agreed;
A new shift pattern cannot be confirmed until a full shift review has been
undertaken, which will need to be coherent with wider staff changes.
However, the TOM is sufficiently mature to demonstrate the savings that can be made
on the baseline (including Athena). Although improved understanding of the impact of
Athena will change the future costs, it is not anticipated that these will have a significant
enough impact on the savings that Public Contact collaboration will bring to change the
recommendation that implementing the TOM is worthwhile to BCH. The potential impact
of changes in Athena assumptions is explored in Section 4.8.
Therefore the Project Team recommends that the TOM design as described be
approved to allow the project to proceed with detailed design post-FBC.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
68
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
The OBC used a period of 10 years to calculate the net present value (NPV) of the
options presented.
However, as stated in Section 3.2.1, the project is delivering within a context of
considerable wider change and uncertainty. As a consequence, the project cannot have
confidence in costs over a 10 year period and has used a 5-year time horizon to
evaluate FBC costs and savings.
A 5-year timescale allows sufficient time for the project to be implemented (see Section
7.3.2 for more details on the implementation plan) and for new processes and structures
to be embedded to deliver full savings but acknowledges the fact that, beyond 5 years, it
is very difficult to anticipate how BCH as a whole will have changed and how Public
Contact will fit in that context.
To determine the value of delivering the Public Contact collaborated TOM, HMT Green
Book guidance recommends NPV as the standard measure, with an investment with a
positive NPV representing good value to the public sector. In addition, given the
pressing affordability concerns facing BCH, the time taken to payback the initial
investment and deliver real savings is also an important factor to the three forces.
Therefore the Project Team recommends that a 5-year evaluation timescale be
used within the FBC, focused on payback and NPV. The outcome of these
assessments are presented in Section 233, tying the overall cost savings into the
decision on phasing delivery.
The decision on the location(s) from which the future collaborative BCH Public Contact
service will operate is a key decision that will have a significant impact upon staff, on
service delivery and will be of interest to the public.
The analysis presented to underpin this decision focuses on:



Analysis to determine whether or not the project should implement a single site
option or two-mirrored sites option;
Analysis to determine the preferred location(s);
Estates savings as a result the recommended location and configuration.
Configuration
The key driver behind the decision on configuration is based on operational risk.
Although a single site option presents potential for some increased savings through
fewer supervisors and release of existing estate, there is significantly higher
implementation risk to delivering a single site option following FBC. This is highlighted in
Table 34, which presents the key risks in the project risk log that differentiate between
implementing a single site option or a 2-mirrored site option.
Table 34: Risk difference between single site and 2 mirrored sites
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
69
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Single Site
Ref
Risk (Event)
PC_R
05
Significant loss of experienced staff
There is a risk that either staff leave during the
implementation period or do not move to new
location(s)
PC_R
28
Staff Turnover increases immediately
following implementation
There is a risk that the increase in staff
turnover during an implementation destabilises
a collaborated function
PC_R
37
2 mirrored sites
Prob.
Score (I
x P)
4
5
20
5
3
5
Impact
Prob.
Score (I
x P)
4
4
16
15
4
3
12
2
10
3
1
3
Impact
Insufficient resilience in future Public
Contact
There is a risk that the planned Public Contact
TOM will not be able to maintain service in the
event of loss of function(s) at a site.
PC_R
13
Project resource constraints
There is a risk that existing resources do not
have capacity to deliver project to desired
timescales and quality.
5
2
10
3
2
6
PC_R
16
Industrial action
There is a risk of either official (work-to-rule,
strike) or unofficial (increased absenteeism)
industrial action as a result of the potential job
losses from the new Public Contact operating
model
3
3
9
2
2
3
The biggest differentiator between the two configurations is the ability to mitigate
resilience risk:


In a single site if all 999 call handling and command and control functions for
BCH are centred in one location and this centre is forced to close due to a
spontaneous event, such as a fire, BCH would have to rely on other emergency
services being able to handle all the critical services for a period until a
secondary BCH centre could be set up. The volume of 999 calls and the span
of command and control one BCH centre would have means that no one
partner force would be able to cope with this demand alone and the load would
have to be shared out regionally or maybe even beyond to ensure capacity.
Initial conversations with Norfolk and Suffolk constabularies have confirmed
this, with these forces stating that together they would only be able to handle
approx. 30% of BCH 999 volume in addition to their own, even for a short
period.
If BCH maintain two mirrored centres, both of which house critical functions
24/7, the two sites can be configured to be the “fall back” for each other.
Therefore, if site one suffers a spontaneous event requiring evacuation, site
two can take on all the critical functions, part suspending non-critical functions if
required. This is feasible within the current BCH estate and means that BCH
would not be reliant on other police forces or agencies being able to take
responsibility for our critical functions at any time.
Furthermore, implementing a two-mirrored site option post-FBC does not preclude an
eventual transition to a single site in the future (see Section 4.7) and realisation of
further savings. Implementing a single site option post-FBC will take longer than a twomirrored site option, delaying realisation of benefits.
As a consequence, the recommended configuration to be implemented is a two-mirrored
site option.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
70
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Preferred locations
Five locations were considered as potential sites for future collaborative Public Contact
services for the FBC. These locations were:





Bedfordshire Police Headquarters (HQ) at Kempston
Cambridgeshire Police HQ at Hinchingbrooke
Copse Court at Peterborough
Hertfordshire Police HQ at Welwyn Garden City
The empty Area Fire Control Centre at the Cambridge Research Park,
Waterbeach
These five sites were highlighted in the paper at Appendix H of the OBC. A phased
approach was used to identify the preferred options for the collaborated TOM, aiming to
remove those locations that did not meet certain key criteria and focus detailed design
and analysis on the locations that best met the requirements of Public Contact. The
detailed assessment undertaken is available in Appendix P and is summarised below.
Two key decision criteria were identified in order to assess the suitability of each location
for collaborative Public Contact and inform down-selection for detailed design and cost
consideration:


Operational risk, focused on key items within the Public Contact risk log such
as the significant loss of experienced staff, ability to recruit new staff and level
of change required;
Scalability to potentially additional services to Public Contact in the future.
Each location was scored as ‘red’, ‘amber’ or ‘green’ (with ‘green’ indicating relatively
high operational risk as a result of closing the site, low operational risk in retaining the
site, and high potential for scalability) against each of these criteria with full justification
captured. The results of this assessment are presented in Table 35 with justification
available in Appendix P.
Table 35: Assessment of locations against criteria
Location
Criteria
Assessment
Operational Risk
Bedfordshire Police HQ
Scalability
Operational Risk
Cambridgeshire Police HQ
Scalability
Operational Risk
Copse Court
Scalability
Operational Risk
Hertfordshire Police HQ
Scalability
Operational Risk
Waterbeach
Scalability
As a result of this assessment, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Police HQ were
identified as the most suitable locations for future collaborative public contact services.
The three constabularies are currently carrying a significant number of high risks
associated with the collaboration programme and other major change programmes.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
71
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Changes to public contact functions within the police service are notoriously difficult and
have often resulted in a failure of the service and a move to reduce the sites from which
we operate will present additional risk. On the basis of operational risk, Cambridgeshire
and Hertfordshire HQs offer considerable advantages over other locations.
Further analysis based on the TOM design, determined the number of workstations that
would be required for future core Public Contact at function implementation, as outlined
in Table 36. This includes workspaces for the core functions but not additional
workstations required for management and support staff, which would use the ‘spare’
workstations. Additional spare workstations are also required for resilience in case of
resource-intensive events that require more than the standard peak number of staff to
manage.
Table 36: Workstations required for TOM at implementation
Location 1
(Hinchingbrooke)
Location 2
(Welwyn Garden City)
Total
Core Requirement
88
99
187
Spare
8
36
44
Total work stations
96
135
231
Workstations
The large number of workstations required (driven largely by the impact of Athena on
FTEs required) strengthens the arguments in favour of using Welwyn Garden City and
Hinchingbrooke as the future locations for collaborated Public Contact on a 2-mirrored
site option. Neither Kempston nor Copse Court could accommodate the necessary
number of workstations without significant impact on other functions.
In the short-term immediately after implementation of the new TOM a higher number of
staff and workspaces would be needed; the implications of this for Estate planning will
be developed as part of detailed implementation planning.
Estates savings
The savings that can be realised as a result of the location recommendation are driven
by a number of key assumptions:





Moving the FCR out of Kempston will bring no cashable savings to Public
Contact but will enable better management of future growth, relieve current
estate pressures in Bedfordshire and avoid cost of building future
accommodation will be recorded as non-cashable financial savings. These noncashable savings as a result of wider collaborative savings are quantified using
the % of baseline cost currently attributed to Public Contact.
Copse Court (Peterborough) could be leased out at approximately £270 per
square metre per year with the rental income considered a financial saving.
If Criminal Justice leaves Copse Court there would be more space available to
lease, however, the building cannot be disposed for another five years.
Minimal adaption to the Hinchingbrooke would be required to accommodate
more staff, however, there may be cost and disruption by relocating the ICT
team (mitigated by current plans to increase remote working for this team).
Savings are considered against the
This results in savings as outlined in Table 37.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
72
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Table 37: Estates costs and savings
Baseline Including
Athena
Future TOM at
end state
Change
Kempston
0.17
0.00
-0.17
Luton
0.02
0.00
-0.02
Greyfriars
0.02
0.00
-0.02
Hinchingbrooke
0.12
0.22
0.10
Copse Court
0.06
0.00
-0.06
Welwyn Garden City
0.54
0.40
-0.14
TOTAL RUNNING COSTS
0.93
0.63
-0.30
0.000
0.005
0.005
£m, 15/16 prices
Running Costs
Net Revenue
Copse Court rental income
The assumption at FBC is that Copse Court will be rented out; however, the facility may
ultimately be used for another purpose by BCH in order to enable wider efficiencies
through the forces’ estates strategies.
A wider review of estates usage across BCH and by collaborative functions will
determine whether there will be any change to current recharging across the three
forces; we have currently assumed no cross charging of estates costs in this FBC.
Conclusion and recommendation
The decision on future location is based less on cost and more on operational risk. A
two-mirrored site option at Hinchingbrooke and Welwyn Garden City provides the lowest
risk approach to implement collaborated Public Contact at this time, both in terms of
implementation risk and maintaining resilience in the long-term.
As a result of this analysis, the Project Team recommends that approval is given to
implement the 2 mirrored site option at Welwyn Garden City and Hinchingbrooke.
The Assurance Review conducted in April 2015 highlighted HR phasing as a key
decision area underpinning the FBC. However, decisions about people changes cannot
be taken in isolation of wider implementation planning; as a consequence this decision
area focuses on the key principles that underpin the implementation of Public Contact
Collaboration as a whole (noting that HR phasing forms a key part of this).
This section outlines:


The key principles underpinning the post-FBC implementation plan, including
what will not be included in Public Contact Collaboration implementation;
The impact that these principles have on phasing of implementation costs and
delivery of savings.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
73
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Key principles of implementation plan
The key principles that underpin the FBC implementation plan are as follows:

a)
b)
c)
Overall approach:
Those changes that enable early savings and have the potential for
accelerated implementation should be identified and built into the early
phases of the plan, as ‘quick-wins’.
Cultural and behavioural barriers to the adoption of the new model and new
ways of working, will be addressed through a number of specific activities,
throughout the implementation to drive a crucial behavioural shift. The plan
will also address the challenge of aligning the culture and behaviour from the
three organisations.
Processes and structures will be harmonised incrementally before moving
staff into new locations, where possible within ICT and Estates constraints.
This will help to:
i)
Minimise the risk during implementation as the level of change being
undertaken at one-time is reduced.
ii) Accelerate implementation and therefore, potentially accelerate the
realisation of benefits.
iii) Help to develop the right culture and behaviours from an early stage
and bring the three Forces closer together before the move.
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

a)
b)
c)
Furthermore, some processes can be identified to change with immediate
effect following FBC sign off.
The Engagement & Communications workstream will drive regular, open,
transparent engagement to go beyond mandated contact and briefings with
UNISON and Federations.
Lessons learned will be continually assessed and evaluated throughout the
implementation process. This will include revisiting the demand and FTE
estimates as Self-Service lands and more Athena detail emerges to further
test that the Target Operating Model (TOM) and Org design remain
achievable.
Where possible, Bedfordshire will experience accelerated implementation and
may be offered early view of relocation options, even when full details of roles
and shift patterns are unknown.
Based on the assumption that the proportion of staff choosing not to re-locate
will be greatest in Bedfordshire, the movement of Bedfordshire staff as early
as possible in the implementation process will minimise the likelihood of a loss
of experienced staff impacting the progress of collaboration, by maintaining
stability while Beds staff re-locate.
HR and staff related implementation principles
To minimise the impact on staff and mitigate redundancy, allocated posts for
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire will be located, where possible, in their own
force area. Bedfordshire staff will be offered, where possible, roles at their
preferred location. If this is not possible, other redeployment options will be
considered before redundancy.
Any movement of staff from Bedfordshire must be mirrored by a shift in
workload currently managed from this site.
Staff cannot be asked to commit to a new location until they have sufficient
clarity of what their future role will be. This includes the detail of what their role
will look like, when final go-live of new processes will take place, what their
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
74
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)

a)
b)
c)
final role and responsibilities will be and what their future shift pattern will be
following go-live.
For staff that choose not to relocate, we will determine when there is longer a
requirement for them to work at their current location, and it is only at that time
when they will be made redundant. We will have an estimation of the likely
date when we commence individual consultation, but the confirmed date to
cease of work will be confirmed when we serve notice of redundancy on that
member of staff. We will manage this date such that there is sufficient lead
time to recruit and train new staff before we serve notice on existing staff
The process by which individuals and teams are identified for re-organisation
will focus on minimising impact on staff. Where possible movement across the
three forces will follow common timelines and a common approach, however
may be bespoke to each of the forces where this is deemed to least
disruptive.
It is proposed that the recruitment process will start as soon as possible
following the start of collective consultation with UNISON on the assumption
that the number of staff choosing not to relocate will result in insufficient
resources to staff the future TOM. No appointments will be confirmed until it is
certain that vacancies exist following consultation with all affected staff.
Recruitment and training will have a lead time of 9 months.
The implementation of any proposals that may impact on staff will be
managed through the tri-force Redundancy and Reorganisation policy. Full
and meaningful consultation will be undertaken with UNISONs, Federation
and individual staff in accordance with employment legislation and this policy,
and will be delivered to affected staff in line with the operational phasing of the
proposals.
It is recognised that the decision to relocate or take redundancy is highly
dependent on individual staff circumstances, which will not be fully understood
until individual consultations have taken place. As a result, both timescales
and cost of the HR process are a key project uncertainty.
ICT related implementation principles:
Some ICT infrastructure will be deemed essential for go-live, where further
ICT solutions may be introduced iteratively, once process and location
changes are established. Processes which are dependent on new ICT
solutions will be identified and highlighted through implementation planning.
Self-Service is an integral part of the Public Contact Programme. Its roll-out
will commence early in the implementation and help drive knock-on process
changes as we move towards the new model.
Athena will implement an interim solution while Public Contact introduce new
future processes and re-locate staff
There are a number of wider initiatives that will facilitate delivery of Public Contact
Collaboration in the long term but for which the Project Team is not responsible for
delivering and, in many cases, will not be delivered within project implementation
timescales. These include:


Possible decision to change the employment model from lead force shared
service (where staff within the collaborated function are employed by each of
the three forces in agreed proportions) to host force (where staff are employed
by the force that is considered to run the function).
Development of a single set of employment terms and conditions so that
individuals doing the same job across each of the three forces operate with the
same rewards, benefits and ways of working.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
75
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
These initiatives have wider implications beyond Public Contact and are not essential to
deliver a collaborated function. As a consequence they should be considered separate
from Public Contact Collaboration, although they can build on key learnings from the
Collaboration Project.
These principles have driven the development of the implementation plan presented in
Figure 10 below, which is further explored Section 7.3.2.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
76
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Figure 10: Implementation Plan
77
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Phasing of costs and benefits
Although there will be some small quick-win savings in FY 15/16, the majority of savings
will start to be realised between FY 16/17 and FY 17/18 with the full end-state benefits
achieved in FY 18/19 once the new operating model has settled. It is likely that in FY
19/20 and FY 20/21 a 5% per annum financial reduction target will be set to promote a
culture of continuous improvement in line with the approach which has been taken to
Joint Protective Services. This has not been included in the modelling.
The graphs below reflect the costs and savings of Public Contact and therefore exclude
downstream savings and include reductions in estates costs charged to Public Contact
(noting that the majority of these will not be cashable).
Figure 11: Profile of costs and savings
Table 38 presents the breakdown of costs and savings, including the calculation of
payback year and NPV.
Table 38: Profiled costs and benefits
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Baseline (including Athena)
28.76
30.98
31.06
30.93
31.07
ICT Capital Investment
-0.56
-0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICT Revenue
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
HR Redundancy
0.00
0.00
-2.08
0.00
0.00
HR Relocation
0.00
0.00
-0.43
-0.19
-0.19
HR Recruitment
-0.05
-0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Change Team
-0.79
-0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
Estates
-0.03
-0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
Moving Hinchingbrooke ICT
0.00
-0.02
-0.13
0.00
0.00
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
-1.44
-1.68
-2.63
-0.19
-0.19
Implementation Costs
Cashable Benefits
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
78
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Police Officers Released from Public Contact
0.04
0.52
1.11
1.20
1.20
Police Staff Costs
0.02
0.27
1.16
2.69
2.69
Estates Rental Income
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.06
ICT
0.00
0.05
0.17
0.06
0.20
Total Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.86
2.49
4.01
4.15
Incremental Cashable Savings
0.06
0.80
1.64
1.52
0.14
Downstream Savings (reduced deployments)
0.00
0.00
0.68
8.19
8.19
Total Potentially Cashable Benefits
0.00
0.00
0.68
8.19
8.19
Incremental Potentially Cashable Savings
0.00
0.00
0.67
7.42
0.00
Estates Efficiency
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.25
0.25
Total Non-Cashable
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.25
0.25
Incremental Non-Cashable Savings
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.11
0.00
TOTAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS
0.06
0.87
3.30
12.36
12.50
TOTAL INCREMENTAL SAVINGS
0.06
0.81
2.44
9.05
0.14
Net cash flow
-1.39
-0.82
0.67
12.17
12.31
Cumulative cash flow
-1.39
-2.20
-1.53
10.64
22.94
Potentially Cashable Benefits
Non-Cashable Benefits
TOTAL
PAYBACK
Payback
2.9 years,
in 18/19
NPV
Discount factor
1.00
0.97
0.93
0.90
0.87
Discounted cash flow
-1.39
-0.79
0.63
10.97
10.72
NPV
20.15
This shows that collaboration pays back within three years of the start of implementation
and has a strong positive NPV, indicating that it is a value for money investment. If we
consider only cashable costs and benefits, the NPV is £6.32m in five years and
therefore still provides value to the forces.
Conclusion and recommendation
The Project Team recommends that these principles be approved to drive
implementation after FBC.
This FBC focuses on the TOM that will be delivered within the next two years and the
benefits that this will bring. However, it is important to note that the implementation of
the TOM as defined within this FBC and supporting documentation will not only deliver
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
79
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
the benefits and savings quantified within this document, but provides a platform for
further improvement and efficiencies in the future.
Key initiatives that could build on successful implementation of the collaborated Public
Contact TOM are captured in Table 39.
Table 39: Potential future initiatives
Initiative
Detail
Reduction in
dispatch channels
With greater use of digital technologies there may be an opportunity to
automatically dispatch directly to officers’ tablets, reducing the need for radio
transmissions and staff required to run talkgroups.
Agile working
On-going investment in ICT may ultimately allow more Public Contact staff to
work remotely, reducing workspace requirements on police estate. The ICT to
enable this will not be available through the implementation phase. Whilst
some facilities could possibly be made available over time there will need to
be consideration of some operational requirements e.g. the need to record
voice calls may inhibit full agile working as the operational requirement to
move people across channels will be impeded by people not having voice
capability. Other functions however could in future be considered for agile
working.
Ongoing shift review
and challenge
There will be limited opportunity to introduce radical changes to shift patterns
through implementation as the focus will be on ensuring staff are ready for
go-live. In the long term, with a push for a more agile culture, there may be
opportunities to introduce an approach to shift working that is more flexible to
demand, whilst maintaining staff morale.
Appointments as
default / selfmanaged
appointments
There is an opportunity to build on updated Public Contact processes. A
change could be made so that local police officers take all non-emergency
work through appointments and manage their own appointments using
tablets, removing the need for Public Contact involvement past the initial
booking. This would need to be balanced against any increased local policing
time / costs as a result.
Increased selfservice functionality
Introduction of more functions on the self-service platform such as ability to
book own appointments, Skype-like capability, evidence sharing could
improve the citizen experience and reduce call volumes.
More efficient
management
New technologies and improved MI availability may enable managers to
operate more remotely from staff, reducing the number of managers needed
across the two sites.
Single site
Once the new processes are settled and the impact of self-service, Athena,
agile working potential and other initiatives is known, there may be an
opportunity to further consolidate to a single site. The benefits of this would
need to be carefully weighed against resilience requirements.
Broader
collaboration
The TOM aims to set up a good practice, efficient Public Contact service with
a focus on continuous improvement. This provides an opportunity to expand
the function to offer contact services to support other organisations such as
with local authorities.
The Public Contact Project Team does not recommend that any decisions on these
initiatives be taken at the current time; however, once the TOM has been implemented
and settled, each potential future development should be considered on a case by
case basis and further approvals sought.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
80
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
The analysis for FBC is necessarily driven by assumptions as there is no way to be
certain about some key variables (e.g. handling times, channel shift) without extensive
testing or piloting. To ensure we understand the level of uncertainty within the numbers
presented in the FBC, the Project Team has completed a number of key sensitivity
analyses, focusing on:





Increased Athena scope within Public Contact IMU
Athena volumes and average handling times
Channel shift
Shift patterns
Delays to implementation
In addition, the Project Team has explored the potential impact of:


A key project risk with regards to not being able to recruit and retain staff in line
with current estimates; and
The uncertainties around relocation and redundancy costs and timescales,
although understanding the financial impact will require further analysis.
Increased Athena scope within Public Contact IMU
The original scope of the Public Contact IMU, agreed by JCOB in March 2015,
determined that Public Contact would provide a centralised function to manage the
following within the IMU:



The recording and linking of all crime and non-crime investigations reported by
a Member of the Public
The QA and linking of all crime and non-crime investigations reported to an
Officer
The data management (QA and linking) for all ongoing investigations
The scope above formed the main design parameters for the Public Contact TOM which
includes the IMU. This scope was then fed into a demand and costing exercise in order
to produce a cost estimate to deliver this service.
Upon review of the estimated investment cost for a fully scoped IMU, JCOB made a
decision on the 9th June to reduce cost. The decision was made that all officer QA /
linking and ongoing investigations management would be managed within Local
Policing. In addition ‘sideways’ demand (i.e. QA and linking of records generated by
other functions such as Criminal Justice) will also be managed by the functions creating
the records. However, the IMU would continue to manage the allocations for crime and
non-crime investigations, as well as the outcomes for crimes.
The Athena Programme Team are currently working with Local Policing to understand
the impact of this decision on their activities and overall ability to meet Athena targets.
Until the new Athena model has been confirmed, there remains a risk that this activity
will move back into the Public Contact IMU.
Figure 12 shows the impact of these buckets of demand if they were to be moved back
into the Public Contact design. Overall, if Local Policing and sideways demand were to
be QA and linked by the Public Contact IMU, the Athena cost uplift would increase from
£2.4m to £6.5m.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
81
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Figure 12: Athena-inclusive baseline with sideways and local policing demand
In the end-state, overall costs would also increase – with both sideways and Local
Policing demand end-state costs are 14% higher than in main case presented in this
FBC. However, benefits on the Athena-inclusive baseline would also increase, as
efficiency savings are made on a larger base. The impact of the increased demand on
benefits, NPV and payback are presented in Table 40.
Table 40: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with increased Athena scope
Main (No
Sideways or
Local
Policing
Demand)
Including
'Sideways
Demand'
Change
on main
case
Including
Local Policing
and Sideways
Demand
Change
on main
case
End-state Cost (£m)
26.67
27.12
2%
30.51
14%
All Benefits (£m)
12.36
12.46
1%
12.53
1%
Cashable Benefits
(£m)
4.01
4.11
2%
4.18
4%
NPV (£m)
20.15
20.39
1%
20.83
3%
Payback (All Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.9 years, in
18/19
No change
2.8 years, in
18/19
0.1 years
earlier
Payback (Cashable
Benefits)
3.4 years, in
18/19
3.3 years, in
18/19
0.1 years
earlier
3.2 years, in
18/19
0.2 years
earlier
Athena volumes and average handling times
FTE requirements in the new target operating model are driven by the volumes and
handling times of the different activities undertaken by the Public Contact function.
Whereas call handling volumes and handling times are reasonably well understood (as it
can be based on historic data held by BCH and informed by experience from other
forces; call handling processes will not significantly change in the TOM) and are
therefore not a driver of significant uncertainty, Athena processes are new. Although
Athena has been implemented in Essex, there is very limited data available on handling
times to record and link in the new system, as well as uncertainty as to what must be
recorded.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
82
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
The main analysis within the FBC is derived from an assessment of the optional noncrime investigations do not have to recorded on Athena (i.e. suspicious incidents and
ASB environment) and based on Athena handle time estimates prepared by Norfolk and
Suffolk forces. Given the uncertainty of these estimates, the impacts of two different
scenarios have been considered:


An optimistic view of average handle times, reducing estimates by
approximately one third to test the impact if the system is quicker to complete
than currently anticipated. It should be noted that evidence suggests this
optimistic view would require an increase in efficiency on current performance;
A pessimistic view of average handle times, assuming that all non-crime
investigations must be recorded and all records take 20 minutes to record and
10 minutes to link (which are the original Athena assumptions provided by the
Athena Programme Team).
As presented in Table 41, changing these assumptions does not have a significant
impact on end-state costs or benefits; the optimistic view decreases costs by 1% and the
pessimistic view increases costs by 1%.
Table 41: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different Athena volume and AHT
assumptions
Main
Optimistic
Volumes and
Handle Times
Change
on main
case
Pessimistic
Volumes and
Handle Times
Change
on main
case
End-state Cost (£m)
26.67
26.44
-1%
26.92
1%
All Benefits (£m)
12.36
12.15
-2%
12.10
-2%
Cashable Benefits
(£m)
4.01
3.81
-5%
3.76
-6%
NPV (£m)
20.15
19.74
-2%
19.65
-2%
Payback (All Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.9 years, in
18/19
No change
2.9 years, in
18/19
No
change
Payback (Cashable
Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
3.4 years, in
18/19
No change
3.4 years, in
18/19
No
change
Channel shift
The FBC main scenario assumes a 5% shift from telephone to digital channels. This
drives the expected number of operators and therefore staff costs and is derived from an
analysis of current demand against relevant services, set against an understanding of
channel shift achieved at other comparable organisations. The detailed analysis that
underpins the FBC assumption is unchanged from the analysis presented in the OBC.
However, the use of digital channels for police services is still in early stages across the
UK and there is limited evidence to allow for real confidence in what can be achieved.
As a consequence, it is important to understand the implications if the project does not
achieve the shift anticipated; and equally to understand the potential savings if there is
greater take-up (e.g. 10%) of online services.
As shown Table 42 in an increase or decrease in channel shift will affect the number of
police staff required to operate the Public Contact service; however the overall impact on
cost is not highly significant; if no channel shift is achieve, end-state costs increase by
just 1%.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
83
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Table 42: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different channel shift assumptions
Main (5%
Channel
Shift)
0% Channel
Shift
Change
on main
case
10% Channel
Shift
Change
on main
case
End-state Cost (£m)
26.67
26.92
1%
26.27
-1%
All Benefits (£m)
12.36
12.10
-2%
12.75
3%
Cashable Benefits
(£m)
4.01
3.76
-6%
4.41
10%
NPV (£m)
20.15
19.68
-2%
20.88
4%
Payback (All Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.9 years, in
18/19
No change
2.9 years, in
18/19
No
change
Payback (Cashable
Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
3.4 years, in
18/19
No change
3.3 years, in
18/19
0.1 years
earlier
Shift patterns
Public Contact has proposed a combination of shift patterns matched to demand but the
final shift pattern cannot be determined until completion of a full shift review and
consultation.
As a consequence, there is considerable uncertainty in the overall outcome of shift
review and discussions with staff, which could drive costs higher or lower.
This analysis focuses on the impact that introducing a 4-on, 4-off, 12 hour shift pattern
across the function, supplemented by a number of part-time shift patterns that closely
align to the curve could have on estimated costs and benefits. This is considered the
most ambitious approach to shift patterns and will be very difficult to implement for a
number of reasons:


The Force Control Room can be a stressful and intense workplace, due to the
nature of activities undertaken. Maintaining the necessary levels of
concentration over a 12 hour shift, constantly in front of a monitor, would be
difficult and could result in high stress levels and poor staff morale, ultimately
driving illness and absenteeism.
As a consequence, it may be difficult to gain staff buy-in to adopting 4-on-4-off
shift patterns and it is anticipated that there would be resistance during
consultation. Implementing a shift pattern without staff buy-in would not only
likely result in reduced motivation and performance, but is against one of the
key objectives of the project – ‘To create a healthy culture for staff with
Continuous Improvement’.
Therefore this sensitivity analysis is included to test the limits of what is likely to
achievable (in terms of reducing cost) by implementing a more ambitious and demanddriven approach to shift patterns. It should be noted, that, should the project be unable
to introduce shift patterns that are reasonably flexible the demand curve (as assumed in
this FBC), shift patterns could equally drive a cost increase.
As shown in Table 43, if a more ambitious approach to shift patterns can be introduced,
the project could reduce function costs by up to £0.5m annually.
Table 43: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with a 4-on-4-off, 12 hour shift pattern
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
84
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Main
4 on, 4 off, 12 hour
shift pattern
Change on
main case
End-state Cost (£m)
26.67
25.84
-3%
All Benefits (£m)
12.36
13.19
7%
Cashable Benefits (£m)
4.01
4.84
21%
NPV (£m)
20.15
21.69
8%
Payback (All Benefits)
2.9 years, in 18/19
2.9 years, in 18/19
No change
Payback (Cashable Benefits)
2.9 years, in 18/19
3.2 years, in 18/19
0.2 years earlier
Delays to implementation
Delivery of the Public Contact collaborated function is highly complex with a large
number of dependencies. The current plan sees the TOM going live in March 2017.
However, the project has a stretch target to implement by October 2016; this would
require all activities to be delivered on time with very little risk being realised. It is also
recognised that, although the current plan is considered realistic, there is potential for
slippage given the scale of change required.
As a consequence, the project has considered the impact on NPV and payback (as endstate costs will remain unchanged) if the project is able to deliver by October 2016 and if
go-live slips to October 2017. As shown in Table 44, any delay in implementation has a
large impact on NPV within the five year evaluation timescales. In addition to delaying
benefits realisation, implementation costs will increase as, at the very least, the Project
Implementation Team will need to be maintained for a longer period of time.
Table 44: NPV and payback with different go-live assumptions
Main (Go live
in March
2017)
Go live in
October 2016
Change
on main
case
Go live in
October 2017
Change
on main
case
20.15
25.12
25%
13.44
-33%
Payback (All Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.1 years, in
17/18
0.8 years
earlier
3.2 years, in
18/19
0.3 years
later
Payback (Cashable
Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.9 years, in
18/19
0.5 years
earlier
4 years, in
19/20
0.6 years
later
NPV (£m)
Vacancy factors
The main case of the FBC assumes that the required numbers of staff (as calculated
based on forecast demand) can be recruited and maintained throughout Athena go-live,
Public Contact implementation, through to establishment of the final structures by March
2018. However, the project’s biggest risk is that this is not possible and Public Contact is
understaffed relative to requirements.
The current general assumption is that Public Contact will maintain an overall vacancy
factor (i.e. established posts that are not filled at any given time) of 2.7% throughout the
next five years. This is based on 1% officer vacancy factor and 3% staff. If this is
maintained, the Project Team is reasonably confident that operational capability can be
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
85
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
maintained and, barring realisation of wider performance risks, Public Contact should be
able to meet performance targets.
It should be noted that the 3% staff vacancy factor is an average planning assumption,
which varies across the three forces:



Bedfordshire has planned for a 4.5% vacancy factor but, in reality mobilised
officers and used overtime to cover vacancies resulting in an overall overspend
on forecast staff costs of 6.1%;
Cambridgeshire includes no vacancy factor in planning budgets but underspent
on gross budget by approximately 7.2% due to vacancies;
Herts included a 3.5% vacancy factor but underspent on gross budget by 7.6%
due to vacancies.
Although the Public Contact Collaboration Project Team are already actively working to
mitigate the risk of an under-resourced function, which will be helped by Athena
programme efforts to resource interim IMUs, this remains a major concern. However, the
impact of this risk will be positive on costs and financial benefits as Public Contact will
incur less costs than currently planned. The Project Team has explored the impact if,
from implementation of Athena, Public Contact sees a 5%, 7.5% or 10% vacancy factor,
as shown in Table 45. However, the most important financial impact of a different
vacancy factor is on short-term affordability, which is discussed in the Financial Case
Section 6.2.4.
Table 45: Costs, benefits, NPV and payback with different vacancy factor assumptions
Main (1%
officers,
3% staff)
5%
staff
Change
on main
case
7.5%
staff
Change
on main
case
10%
staff
Change
on main
case
End-state
Cost (£m)
26.67
26.25
-2%
25.73
-4%
25.21
-5%
All Benefits
(£m)
12.36
12.40
0%
12.46
1%
12.51
1%
Cashable
Benefits (£m)
4.01
4.06
1%
4.11
2%
4.17
4%
NPV (£m)
20.15
20.30
1%
20.49
2%
20.68
3%
Payback (All
Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
2.9
years,
in 18/19
No
change
2.9
years,
in 18/19
No
change
2.9
years, in
18/19
No
change
Payback
(Cashable
Benefits)
2.9 years, in
18/19
3.3
years,
in 18/19
0.1 years
earlier
3.3
years,
in 18/19
0.1 years
earlier
3.3
years, in
18/19
0.1 years
earlier
These reduced costs, though, must be considered in light of the negative impact not
achieving required staff levels will have on Public Contact performance:



Although 999 performance targets will be maintained, the function will struggle
to meet 101 and wider data recording and management (including Athena)
performance targets.
There will be increased operational risk as staff are overworked and stressed to
compensate for high level of vacancies, possibly resulting in increased staff
absence, exacerbating issues.
Poor performance will result in loss of internal and public confidence.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
86
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Relocation and redundancy
Within implementation costs, the most uncertain element is the HR relocation and
redundancy costs. HR relocation and redundancy uncertainty also has a wider impact on
the project’s ability to deliver an effective TOM in line with the current implementation, as
the loss of a larger than expected number of experienced staff could have a major
impact on operational performance.
For example, staff pension strain capital costs would need to be paid on early
retirement. These ensure that a member of staff leaving earlier than retirement age
would not have their pension receipts discounted due to leaving earlier, which would be
the case if they had chosen to leave and were not being made redundant.
An overall estimate of pension strain capital costs has been included within the
implementation cost redundancy calculation based on local government standard of
50% of salary. However, it needs to be highlighted that this could, dependent on length
of service, age and contributions cost as much as 110% of salary. In a worst case
scenario this would equate to a possible additional £700k pension strain costs for
Bedfordshire staff who chose redundancy.
Current cost assumptions are based on a detailed analysis of current staff, the impact of
relocating on their commute, and experience from previous collaborations. However, this
is the largest collaboration in BCH to-date and it is recognised that decisions to move
are largely based on individual circumstances, which will not be fully understood until
detailed consultation. In addition, the costs of redundancy can vary significantly based
on current length of service.
The project has used relatively pessimistic assumptions to inform FBC costs in order to
ensure a level of prudence is included in implementation cost estimates. However, these
remain highly uncertain and a related risk has been raised.
Within the coming months the Project Team will focus on refining relocation and
redundancy assumptions and impact on implementation costs; this will form a key part of
the ongoing review and challenge of project costs and any material variance on current
assumptions will be clearly communicated to inform budget setting and wider planning.
Overall summary and conclusion
All scenarios aside from the introduction of Local Policing Athena activity to Public
Contact still result in a reduction on current baseline costs, with the greatest potential
impact on benefits driven by channel shift and a more ambitious approach shift patterns
in the new model (noting that delivering a 4-on, 4-off shift pattern across the function is
likely to be very difficult with potential knock-on impact on staff morale and productivity).
Figure 13: Impact of scenarios on end-state annual costs
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
87
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
Main
Including
'Sideways
Demand'
Including Local
Policing and
Sideways
Demand
0% Channel
Shift
10% Channel
Shift
Optimistic
Athena AHT and
Volumes
Pessimistic
Athena AHT and
Volumes
4-on, 4-off shifts
6 months earlier
implementation
6 months later
implementation
Table 46: Impact of scenarios on benefits, NPV and payback
Benefits
(£m)
-12.36
-12.46
-12.53
-12.10
-12.75
-12.15
-12.10
-13.19
-12.36
-12.36
NPV (£m)
20.15
20.39
20.83
19.68
20.88
19.74
19.65
21.69
25.12
13.44
Payback
(All
Benefits)
2.9
years,
in 18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.8
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
2.1
years, in
17/18
3.2
years, in
18/19
Payback
(Cashable
Ben.)
2.9
years,
in 18/19
3.3
years, in
18/19
3.2
years, in
18/19
3.4
years, in
18/19
3.3
years, in
18/19
3.4
years, in
18/19
3.4
years, in
18/19
3.2
years, in
18/19
2.9
years, in
18/19
4 years,
in 19/20
Another key area of uncertainty is the level of downstream savings that Public Contact
can drive in Local Policing. However, the project has deliberately taken a conservative
view to estimating this benefit; as the case stands on this conservative view, any larger
benefit that can be achieved simply reinforces the case for implementing the TOM.
In addition, there remains uncertainty as to the cost of the final ICT solution, given the
relatively low level of definition at this stage. However, ICT implementation and
operating costs are relatively immaterial compared to the above sensitivities and
therefore a separate analysis has not been completed in this FBC. This is an area that
the project will continue to manage closely post-FBC.
This analysis indicates that, although there remains a lot of uncertainty in the delivery of
the collaborative Public Contact function, none of this uncertainty undermines the
argument that there is substantial benefit to be gained from the proposed TOM.
Table 47 presents how the status quo un-collaborated Public Contact function and the
proposed collaborated TOM with accompanying implementation plan outlined in this
Economic Case perform against the project CSFs. They are each rated either Red (poor
performance against CSF), Orange (reasonable performance) or Green (good
performance). The deeper the colour, the more important the CSF (this is based on the
prioritisation agreed at OBC)
Table 47: Critical Success Factors and definitions
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
88
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
CSF
Efficient and
effective common
business
processes
Appropriately
skilled,
empowered and
supported staff
Industry standard
and fit-for-purpose
technology
Enables channel
shift
Strategic and
regulatory
alignment
Fit-for-purpose
performance
framework
Priority
Status Quo
Collaborated
TOM
Rationale
3
Currently processes are different across all
three forces and they do not reflect the
changing requirements introduced by Athena
and channel shift. The TOM includes clear
new processes that capture all requirements
and aim to simplify existing processes.
Although processes could be changed in the
status quo to cope with new requirements,
this would have to be replicated in three
forces and would be a time-consuming and
costly process.
1
The introduction of the Athena IMU to Public
Contact would require a substantial uplift in
staff numbers to handle the increased
volumes and handle times. It would be very
difficult to staff the Athena requirement to the
agreed level of capability without a
collaborated function. Collaboration mitigates
the uplifted staff requirement (although a risk
of being able to resource the TOM remains)
and the new TOM introduces enablers to a
positive work environment such as improved
ICT capability and demand-based staff
numbers that ensure the function is
sufficiently resourced to meet required
performance.
5
Collaboration introduces some relatively
minor ICT changes to enable the new
processes but major changes to improve
efficiency are a possible future initiative.
6
Although the status quo would allow some
channel shift to be delivered, the new TOM
includes aligned processes specifically to
support new channels (which could be
introduced in the status quo but would not be
consistent across the three forces) and a
single function could drive a more coherent
approach to increase channel shift.
5
The status quo does not meet wider strategic
drives to collaborate functions and will not
allow for any significant savings in response
to budget pressures. The TOM has been
specifically designed to align with strategic
needs including driving cost reductions in the
wider organisation as well as mitigating the
impact of Athena on Public Contact costs.
2
The TOM allows for a single, comprehensive
balanced scorecard performance framework
as a significant improvement on current
disparate performance metrics across the
organisation.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
89
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
ECONOMIC CASE
CSF
Priority
Scalability
potential
Ease and speed
of delivery
Status Quo
Collaborated
TOM
Rationale
6
With the introduction of Athena
requirements, the staffing requirements for
Public Contact in the status quo will be very
difficult to achieve without collaboration,
which means there is no real potential to
scale the function. Once the collaborated
TOM has ‘settled’ post-implementation, there
is potential for further initiatives to build on its
platform, including using the established
capability to support wider Public services.
4
Introducing a collaborated Public Contact
function will take 1-2 years and will result in
significant disruption to the organisation.
However, the risks of implementation are
mitigated by development of a robust,
dependency-driven implementation plan and
the project has engaged business leaders
and experts to test and assure the viability of
successful delivery.
The table presents a clear case for delivering the new collaborated Public Contact TOM
over maintaining the status quo. Although there is inevitably some delivery risk, a
collaborated function offers potential for savings and improved performance that cannot
be delivered across the three separate functions, even before the impact of Athena is
taken into account. Athena capability would be highly problematic to maintain in each of
the three forces due to the resources required.
Based on the evidence presented in this Economic Case, the Project Team makes the
following recommendations in response to each of the five decision areas:





TOM design as described should be approved to allow the project to proceed
with detailed design post-FBC;
A 5-year evaluation timescale should be used within the FBC, focused on
payback and NPV;
Approval should be given to implement the 2 mirrored site option at Welwyn
Garden City and Hinchingbrooke;
The principles to drive implementation after FBC should be approved with wider
HR initiatives such as employment model and development of a single set of
tri-force terms and conditions considered out of scope for implementation;
Post implementation, each potential further development should be considered
on a case by case basis and further approvals sought.
The remainder of this business case is on the basis that these recommendations be
accepted and present the commercial, affordability and achievability implications of
these recommendations.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
90
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
This Commercial Case presents the high level requirements for procurement to
support implementation of the Public Contact Collaboration Project. It outlines the
immediate procurement requirements and approach for implementation, and longer
term procurements that will be developed.
Two key areas of procurement are required to support the implementation of Public
Contact Collaboration:


Consultancy support for implementation;
Changes to existing and development of new ICT systems and services to
support the TOM.
It should be noted that the Public Contact Collaboration project does not in its current
TOM require new estate and there is not a major dependency on procurement of new
services to deliver the financial benefits.
Consultancy Support for Implementation
Support is required to ensure that detailed design is progressed, facilitating further
exploration to determine exactly how the new model will work and how this will drive
out savings. Support will enable full understanding of the interdependencies of Athena
and Self-Service rollout and measure the likely impact of demand shift on Public
Contact.
It is recognised that the Public Contact Project has a significant impact on a large
number of staff within the organisation as well as key business processes. This will
require significant expertise in supporting staff through relocation and change of role
through a protracted implementation phase. Guidance and advice is required in order
to allow the organisation to make a smooth transition through the phases of
implementation and ensure compliance with employment legislation and policy.
In addition, the project will require support in a number of key areas such as PMO,
shift pattern modelling and major change project implementation expertise.
ICT Requirements
The high level system requirements for Public Contact Collaboration were outlined in
Section 4.3 and are presented again in Figure 14.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
91
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
Figure 14: ICT solution concept design
Within Figure 14:



Green items are those that require no change to support collaborative Public
Contact;
Amber items are systems that currently exist within BCH but will require
changes to support collaborative Public Contact; and
Red items do not exist within BCH and will need to be procured.
The specific change requirements for each system highlighted in Amber and Red are
outlined in Table 48. The vast majority of the change can be delivered internally or will
be delivered by projects outside the Public Contact Collaboration Project scope.
However, there are six key procurements that are required to enable Public Contact
collaboration:






New telephone recording / playback system;
New or modified Contact Centre System;
New configuration of IVR;
New configuration of ICCS;
New Single Intelligence Search capability;
Alignment of Diary System.
Table 48: ICT change requirements
System
Type of
Change
Owner of
Change
Web Chat
Configuration
Public
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Internal
or
External
Complexity
/ Difficulty
of Change
Time to
Deliver
Change
(months)
Internal
Medium
3
Comments
Dependent on Self-Service
92
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
System
Type of
Change
Owner of
Change
Internal
or
External
Complexity
/ Difficulty
of Change
Time to
Deliver
Change
(months)
Contact
Project
Telephone
System
Upgrade
Public
Contact
Project
Telephone
Recording /
Playback
System
New system requires
procurement
Public
Contact
Project
Comments
capability to deliver.
Internal
External
Low
Medium
6
To align a common system
across the two sites, the same is
in place across CH.
12
Currently 3 systems, urgent
activity needed in Bedfordshire to
expand one of the current
systems.
Contact
Centre
System
New system requires
procurement
Public
Contact
Project
External
Low
6
Netcall available in BH and being
implemented in C - additional
licencing costs for BH
QueueBuster and ACD in C.
Netcall could replace the AACC6
solution in place subject to
requirements. AACC6 cannot
replace Netcall. May be a full
system procurement or extension
to contract - requirements driven.
IVR
New
configuration
Public
Contact
Project
External
Low
2
Live in BH, enablers in place for
tri-force but work not yet
commissioned.
ICCS
New
configuration
Public
Contact
Project
External
Medium
12
If one of the current ICCS can be
extended to support BCH. Need
to take into consideration delivery
of ESMCP.
Mapping
Solution
aligned
Public
Contact
Project
Internal
Low
6
Facilities and contracts aligned
but further work to provide aligned
processes.
Single
Intelligence
Search
New system /
configuration
Public
Contact
Project
External
Medium
12
New capability.
3
Incremental approach may be
possible and may fall under the
SharePoint Project currently
being scoped with tri-force
governance defined. Would
interface to the Single Intelligence
Search
3
Incremental approach may be
possible and may fall under the
SharePoint Project currently
being scoped with tri-force
governance defined - further
clarification over requirements
needed.
9
Incremental approach may be
possible and may fall under the
SharePoint Project currently
being scoped with tri-force
governance defined - further
clarification over requirements
needed.
Knowledge
Base
New system /
configuration
Public
Contact
Project
Business
Intelligence
Convergence
to Inspire
under
consideration
- not a Public
Contact
Project
Has been
discussed
as future 3
force project
Management
Information
Convergence
to Inspire
under
consideration
- not a Public
Contact
Project
Has been
discussed
as future 3
force project
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Internal
Internal
Internal
Low
Low
Low
93
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
Internal
or
External
Complexity
/ Difficulty
of Change
Time to
Deliver
Change
(months)
System
Type of
Change
Owner of
Change
Performance
Information
Convergence
to Inspire
under
consideration
- not a Public
Contact
Project
Has been
discussed
as future 3
force project
Internal
Low
9
Incremental approach may be
possible and may fall under the
SharePoint Project currently
being scoped with tri-force
governance defined.
ESN
New system requires
procurement
National
procurement
programme
External
High
24
Replacement for Airwave
currently estimated for 2017,
being delivered in a national
programme.
Athena
New system
being installed
and
configured
Athena
Programme
External
High
8
Timescales for delivery based on
January 2016 go-live from May
2015.
Duty
Management
Procurement
through the
HR & Finance
Project
HR &
Finance
Project
External
High
11
Project under alternative
governance.
HR
Procurement
through the
HR & Finance
Project
HR &
Finance
Project
External
High
11
Project under alternative
governance.
Self Service
Configuration
Public
Contact
Project
Internal
Medium
3
Diary
System
Solution
aligned (if
remaining with
Smart
STORM
Diary)
Public
Contact
Project
Internal
Medium
9
Comments
BCH rollout of Smart STORM
Diary completed during May.
Requirement driven to determine
if an additional/replacement
solution is needed.
Detailed requirements will be established for each individual procurement exercise as
the appropriate time, in line with the implementation plan (Section 7.3.2). Each
procurement exercise will be progressed through appropriate governance arrangement
with transparent decision making at key milestones including decision to go to market
and / or award of or extension of contract in line with procurement policy.
A number of key risks have been identified associated with the implementation of the
TOM, which will be supported by procured consultants. It is anticipated that, through
the contacting mechanism, risk will be shared with the contractor as follows:
Table 49: Potential for risk transfer
Risk ID
Risk
PC_R05
There is a risk that, due
to staff losses through
implementation or an
inability to recruit
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Owned
by BCH
YES
Owned by
Contractor
Shared Rationale
Risk will be owned by BCH in
its entirety however procured
consultants will be able to
94
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
Risk ID
Risk
Owned
by BCH
Owned by
Contractor
Shared Rationale
sufficient numbers of
skilled resources within
planned timescales,
there is not enough
staff to deliver a robust
Public Contact
operating model.
assist in mitigating this risk
PC_R14
There is a risk that
Public Contact project
will not achieve the
target 30% savings
YES
Risk will be owned by BCH in
its entirety however procured
consultants will be able to
assist in mitigating this risk
PC_R08
There is a risk that the
final Public Contact
solution delivered does
not meet the
established and agreed
requirements
YES
Risk will be owned by BCH in
its entirety however procured
consultants will be able to
assist in mitigating this risk
PC_R11
The risk is that
business owners to do
not take responsibility
for driving out benefits
once solution is
implemented
YES
Risk will be owned by BCH as
procured consultants will not
have ongoing interaction with
Business as Usual once
implementation is complete
PC_R28
There is a risk that the
increase in staff
turnover during
implementation
destabilizes a
collaborated function
YES
Risk will be owned by BCH in
its entirety however procured
consultants will be able to
assist in mitigating this risk
The potential for risk transfer for the ICT procurements will be established on a case
by case basis for each procurement.
In relation to the identified consultancy support and ICT requirements a case-by-case
approach will be taken. Close working with the BCH Procurement Department will
ensure key contractual considerations in relation to contract lengths, key clauses and
contract management.
Where separate or joint contracts are already in place these will be assessed to look at
extension where feasible in line with EU procurement law and the existing clauses and
contract lengths. Where new contracts are required these will be negotiated as part of
the procurement process with leadership via the BCH Procurement Department and
appropriate legal advice on behalf of the six corporations sole. The key contractual
considerations for extension of existing contracts or new contracts will involve each of
the six corporations sole.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
95
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
Within the detailed Project Implementation Plan there are key milestones at which
extension of existing contract or new requirements will be captured. The BCH
Procurement Department will be involved from the outset in any exercises and as the
requirements are captured will advise on procurement routes and sourcing options.
Once the requirements and options are known these will go to the Operational Support
Governance Board for decision with a recommendation on the appropriate
procurement route, procurement timescales and resource estimates. The Operational
Support Governance Board will oversee any agreed procurement process and prior to
award of contract will ensure there is a justified business case and that value for
money has been visibly demonstrated.
The BCH Procurement Department will ensure the delivery of the Target Operating
Model for Public Contact is enabled within the context of EU procurement law.
Appropriate legal advice will be sought to confirm that options and routes identified are
applicable in the specific circumstances of delivering the requirements of the Public
Contact TOM.
Under collaboration the three forces and three OPCCs remain as legally separate
entities. Expansion of a contract without a tendering process could potentially
constitute a breach of EU procurement law depending on the nature of the original
procurement exercise and resulting contract.
Any procurement activity will be completed in line with standard BCH policy and
procedures.
For the procurement of Consultancy Support services for detailed design and any
identified aspects of implementation it is most likely that an existing and appropriate
Crown Commercial Services framework will be utilised to ensure a timely procurement
of services whilst ensure best value.
The detailed approach for each of the ICT procurements will be determined on a case
by case basis. However, the expected route for each system procurement is captured
in Table 50.
Table 50: ICT procurements approach
System
Procurement
Telephone
Recording /
Playback
System
Contact
Centre
System
Type of
Change
Procurement Route and Rationale
New system
- requires
procurement
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings. It will
also be necessary to minimize the continued use of call handling facilities at
any site where the FCR requirement is no longer needed, in order to achieve
maximum savings. If existing contracts or frameworks cannot be used then a
requirements driven procurement exercise will be undertake.
Project will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in
reviewing existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the
core ICT Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
New system
- requires
procurement
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings. It will
also be necessary to minimize the continued use of call handling facilities at
any site where the FCR requirement is no longer needed, in order to achieve
maximum savings. If existing contracts or frameworks cannot be used then a
requirements driven procurement exercise will be undertake.
Project will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in
reviewing existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
96
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
COMMERCIAL CASE
System
Procurement
Type of
Change
Procurement Route and Rationale
core ICT Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
New
configuration
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings.
Project will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in
reviewing existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the
core ICT Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
New
configuration
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings. It will
also be necessary to minimize the continued use of call handling facilities at
any site where the FCR requirement is no longer needed, in order to achieve
maximum savings.
Project will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in
reviewing existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the
core ICT Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
Single
Intelligence
Search
New system
/
configuration
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings. If
existing contracts or frameworks cannot be used then a requirements driven
procurement exercise will be undertake.
We will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in reviewing
existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the core ICT
Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
Diary System
Solution
aligned (if
remaining
with Smart
STORM
Diary)
Re-use existing services where possible to drive out full benefit of legacy
investment and to reduce the lead-time to implementation. Project would still
take all opportunities to re-negotiate all contracts to drive out savings.
Project will use the accepted architectural principle of ‘good enough’ in
reviewing existing services and purchasing new systems; this is one of the
core ICT Architectural Principles as endorsed by the ICT Governance Board.
IVR
ICCS
The primary procurement exercises for this project relate to consultancy support and
ICT systems. All processes will be in line with EU Procurement Law and BCH policies
and procedures. The procurement strategy is to first maximise what is available
internally where feasible and to then follow competitive processes which are driven by
clear agreed requirements. The Operational Support Governance Board will be
involved in decision-making at key milestones. A review of all existing contracts in the
public contact domain will be undertaken as part of implementation to maximise
savings and to provide demonstrable value for money.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
97
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
This Financial Case provides a view of the affordability, payback and funding
requirements for the project, including an assessment of the impact for each force.
It should be noted that, for ease of comparison to basic BCH budgets, all analyses
within the Financial Case exclude the impact of inflation, unless specifically stated.
The primary focus of this affordability analysis is on comparing expected future
collaborated Public Contact costs to current budgets. However, current budgets were
set without consideration of the impact of Athena on Public Contact requirements.
The increase in Public Contact function costs as a result of Athena is not relevant to
decision-making about Public Contact Collaboration: collaboration will not increase
costs to BCH and Athena will be implemented with accompanying cost uplifts
regardless of collaboration decisions. Within the Financial Case, future Public Contact
costs are compared both to current baseline budgets and to the baseline including
Athena.
This section presents a clear comparison of expected Public Contact costs against
available budgets, including:




Clear distinction between the financial impact of the Athena programme and
decisions outside of Public Contact project control on in-scope costs and the
impact of changes driven by Public Contact;
Presentation of the level of savings achieved in each financial year with the
recommended TOM design and how this compares to budgets and target
savings (up to 30%); and
Discussion of the impact of key uncertainties that could drive greater / fewer
savings; and
Potential to generate greater savings beyond those currently assumed.
It should be noted that, unlike in the Economic Case, estates costs are not included in
the Financial Case. Whereas the value of using the released estate is included in
understanding the overall value for money of the proposal within the Economic Case,
the new TOM will not impact how much BCH pays to maintain its estate and therefore
these costs are not relevant within the Financial Case. The new rental income,
however, does bring cash into the organisation; therefore this income is included in
Financial Case analysis.
Impact of Athena on affordability baseline
Detail on the drivers behind the uplift in Public Contact costs as a result of Athena is
presented in detail in Section 3.4.2; the main cause behind the uplift in cost is the
increase in incidents that must be recorded and the additional requirement to link
POLE (Person, Object, Location, Event) data for each record.
It should be noted that, overall, Athena is expected to be self-funding with cost
increases expected in functions such as Public Contact offset by efficiencies
elsewhere in BCH.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
98
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
Table 51 presents the impact of Athena on the affordability budget, increasing the
costs of Public Contact by £2.4m (15/16 prices) in a year. However, it should be noted
that:



The calculated uplift is for a collaborated function; in reality, implementing
Athena in three locations would likely require additional FTEs, which means
that actual annual Public Contact savings on a baseline including Athena
would be higher than reported here;
It does not consider the wider impact of this staffing requirement on ICT;
No increase is assumed to the estates baseline in the affordability analysis
as, although a greater proportion of costs will be apportioned to Public
Contact, it is currently assumed that there will be no actual increase in estates
cost to BCH as a whole. Instead, there will be a potential non-cash cost due
to increased staff and more workspaces for Public Contact in existing sites,
which is reflected in the Economic Case.
Table 51: Impact of Athena on affordability baseline
Cost (£m, 15/16 prices)
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Staff and Officers
25.9
25.9
25.9
25.9
25.9
ICT
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Baseline excluding Athena
27.7
27.7
27.8
27.7
27.8
Target savings
-2.1
-8.3
-8.3
-8.3
-8.3
Current budget for comparison
25.6
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.5
Staff and Officers
26.3
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
ICT
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
Additional Costs
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Baseline including Athena
28.0
30.0
30.1
30.0
30.1
Target savings18
-2.1
-8.3
-8.3
-8.3
-8.3
Athena ‘budget’ for comparison
26.0
21.7
21.8
21.7
21.8
Baseline uplift
0.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Baseline uplift including
inflation
0.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
Excluding Athena
Including Athena
Annual savings against target savings
18
As outlined in Section 3.4.2, the increased costs in Public Contact as a result of Athena are expected to drive
out savings across the wider BCH organisation and are not a result of any decisions by the Public Contact
Collaboration Project. Therefore, the relevant savings target for Public Contact is assumed to be 30% of the
baseline excluding Athena (and non-cash estates costs) rather than including Athena to ensure the savings
required are relevant to the scope of Public Contact collaboration only.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
99
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
The financial analysis undertaken to-date has resulted in the identification significant
potential savings from implementing a new public contact operating model. Of these
savings some are cashable savings directly deliverable by the project but some would
depend on decisions being taken by the wider forces in order to be cashable. Table 52
shows the split between savings within project control and those that are dependent on
wider decisions.
Table 52: Cashable and non-cashable savings
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
30% savings target
2.07
8.31
8.34
8.30
8.34
Police Officers Released from Public
Contact
0.04
0.52
1.11
1.20
1.20
Police Staff Numbers
0.02
0.27
1.16
2.69
2.69
Estates Rental Income
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.06
ICT
0.00
0.05
0.17
0.06
0.20
Total Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.86
2.49
4.01
4.15
Variance on savings target
-2.02
-7.46
-5.84
-4.28
-4.18
Downstream Savings (reduced
deployments)
0.00
0.00
0.67
8.10
8.10
Total Cashable + Potentially
Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.86
3.17
12.11
12.25
Variance on savings target
(cashable + potentially cashable)
-2.02
-7.46
-5.17
3.81
3.91
Cashable Benefits
Potentially Cashable Benefits
As shown in Table 52, the latest implementation plan shows that savings will be
delivered later than originally planned. This is informed by a more in-depth
understanding of the complexity of implementing such a significant organisational
change and ensuring a focus on operational risk underpins all aspects of
implementation. The plan that drives the savings delivery timescales is outlined in
Section 7.3.2.
In addition, cost reductions within the Public Contact function itself do not deliver 30%
savings. This is due to the TOM design principle that, although the collaborated Public
Contact function should seek opportunities for savings within the function, the focus
should be on providing robust upfront review and assessment of incidents and
investigations. It will therefore aim to effectively resolve cases within the Public
Contact function and minimise the need for the deployment of downstream resource.
As a consequence, resourcing of the Public Contact function in the TOM has been set
at a level which allows for the potential for significant downstream savings. If the
strategic decision is taken to realise these savings and reduce officer numbers in Local
Policing, collaboration of the Public Contact function meets its savings targets in the
long term. If the decision is taken to maintain officer numbers the value of this benefit
will be seen in officer time released to support more operationally critical activities.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
100
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
Annual costs against Public Contact budgets
When Public Contact budgets and costs are compared without any consideration for
impact on wider policing costs, future costs are lower than current budgets but higher
than budgets after adjustment for 30% savings target. As shown in Table 53, this is
true against both the current budget and Athena-adjusted ‘budget’.
As stated in Section 6.2.2, the Public Contact TOM has been designed with the
principle that it should maximise efficiencies across BCH, rather than reducing costs in
Public Contact and maintaining costs or risking cost increases in the wider
organisation. Therefore, the Public Contact collaborated TOM is only affordable if a
mechanism can be agreed to transfer budgets from other functions that will benefit
from a more efficient Public Contact function.
Table 53: Collaborated TOM costs against Public Contact budget
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Collaborated TOM costs
27.93
28.92
27.70
26.05
26.05
Estates income
0.00
-0.01
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
TOM costs offset by new income
27.93
28.91
27.64
25.98
25.98
Baseline without savings target
27.66
27.71
27.79
27.66
27.80
Budget with savings target
25.58
19.39
19.45
19.36
19.46
Variance to baseline without savings
target
0.28
1.21
-0.15
-1.67
-1.81
Variance to budget with savings target
2.35
9.52
8.19
6.63
6.53
Baseline without savings target
28.04
30.05
30.13
30.00
30.14
Budget with savings target
25.97
21.74
21.79
21.70
21.80
Variance to baseline without savings
target
-0.11
-1.14
-2.49
-4.01
-4.15
Variance to budget with savings target
1.97
7.17
5.84
4.28
4.18
Current Public Contact budget
Athena-adjusted Public Contact 'budget'
Key uncertainties
As outlined in Section 4.8 there are a number of key uncertainties within the numbers
presented above. The main uncertainties focus on:






Higher vacancy factor than planned
Increased Athena scope within Public Contact IMU
Athena volumes and average handling times
Channel shift
Shift patterns
Delays to implementation
Vacancy factor
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
101
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
As indicated in Section 6.2.3 the main issues with regards to affordability can be seen
in 15/16 and 16/17, after interim IMUs have been introduced with a corresponding
increase in staffing and before Public Contact Collaboration savings start.
The key uncertainty that could have an impact on early-year affordability is vacancy
factors where the function is able to recruit and retain the number of staff that is
required to deliver the planned operational capability. As stated in Section 4.8.6, this
staff shortage will have a significant impact on Public Contact’s ability to meet
performance targets, manage operational risk and maintain staff morale and public
confidence.
However, as shown in Table 54: Public Contact costs with different vacancy factors
(£m, including inflation), Public Contact’s inability to staff the function in line with plans
could alleviate short-term budget pressures, provided the staff shortfall is not offset
with increased officer numbers and overtime, as currently seen in Bedfordshire.
Table 54: Public Contact costs with different vacancy factors (£m, including inflation)
£m, 15/16 prices
15/16
16/17
17/18
Main Case (1% officers, 3% staff)
27.93
28.91
27.64
5% staff factor
27.87
28.54
27.19
7.5% staff factor
27.79
28.08
26.63
10% staff factor
27.71
27.61
26.07
Main Case (1% officers, 3% staff)
0.28
1.21
-0.15
5% staff factor
0.22
0.83
-0.60
7.5% staff factor
0.14
0.37
-1.15
10% staff factor
0.06
-0.09
-1.71
Public Contact Operating Costs
Variance to Current Budget Costs
The progress of both the Public Contact Collaboration Project and the Athena
Programme in recruiting staff will be a key area of focus in the coming months. This
will inform the ongoing review and update of project forecasts and will be a key input to
inform 16/17 budgets.
Remaining scenarios
Table 55 shows the best and worst case scenarios discussed in Section 4.8, with
regards to their impact on overall Public Contact function affordability. This baseline is
based on current costs, not uplifted to reflect Athena, to show affordability against
current budgets.


In no scenario is the cost of the function less than the current baseline in
15/16 or 16/17. This is due to the increase in function costs when Athena is
implemented, as well as the additional resource requirements to support
implementation of the Public Contact function.
No scenario can achieve 30% savings within Public Contact function budgets
only (i.e. ignoring downstream benefits). 30% savings within the function can
only be achieved by compromising the service provided, or, possibly, through
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
102
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE


the implementation of one or more of the ‘Platform for the Future’
opportunities discussed in Section 4.7.
If sideways and local policing QA and linking of Athena records is moved into
Public Contact, costs will remain above the current baseline. This is the most
costly scenario.
Driving faster implementation has the greatest impact on improving the Public
Contact function’s affordability position in 16/17 and 17/18.
Table 55: Best and worst case affordability of other scenarios
£m, 15/16 prices
Including
Sideways and
Local Policing
Demand (worst
case affordability)
October 2016 GoLive
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19 /20
Net TOM costs
28.50
32.40
31.27
29.83
29.83
Variance to baseline without savings target
0.85
4.70
3.48
2.17
2.03
Variance to budget with 30% savings target
2.92
13.01
11.82
10.47
10.37
Net TOM costs
27.93
28.39
26.88
25.98
25.98
Variance to baseline without savings target
0.28
0.68
-0.91
-1.67
-1.81
Variance to budget with 30% savings target
2.35
8.99
7.43
6.63
6.53
Potential to generate greater savings
The savings profile presented represents a TOM and implementation plan that align
with the key principles of fully complying with agreed Athena standards, minimising
operational risk (through implementation and beyond) and investing in Public Contact
to drive wider savings. As a consequence, potentially cashable downstream savings
have to be taken into account in order to show how Public Contact achieves savings
targets.
However, it is noted that savings are achieved later than originally planned and 30%
savings are not achieved within the Public Contact function itself. In order to meet
these targets, strategic decisions will need to be taken to change the principles driving
the project.
Driving faster implementation
Implementation planning has followed the principle of pursuing quick wins and
accelerated implementation to release early savings where possible. Therefore, a
release of accelerated implementation has already been planned. Where suitable and
possible, changes will take place with immediate effect following the sign off of the
FBC.
Accelerating implementation beyond this would result in key changes taking place
before the strategic management offered by Chief Superintendent, Superintendents
and the Management Layer has taken hold. Therefore speeding up the implementation
would result in teams being staffed and trained on to-be processes without oversight
and strategic direction.
Increasing the speed of implementation would not allow processes and structures to
be harmonised incrementally before moving staff into new locations. This would
therefore be directly opposed to the implementation principles agreed by the
programme team in terms of minimising operational risk.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
103
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
Increased implementation would expose the programme to serious risks (see
Implementation Risks in RAID Log, Appendix G)
These risks can be summarised below:





Relocating staff and introducing new processes concurrently would be high
risk due to the large number of key dependencies required at the same time
with very little slack
Harmonising processes before moving locations where appropriate will
support a shared culture and the principle of an incremental approach to
implementation
There is a risk of increased staff turnover during implementation, an approach
focused on cultural harmonisation will help mitigate the risk of increased staff
turnover during implementation
Multiple implementation risks focus on mis-alignment with dependencies and
enabling projects. Any speeding up of implementation will not allow for
dependencies and cross force impact of the programme to be sufficiently
worked through, increasing the likelihood of several risks being realised.
Risk that the implemented solution does not meet the required or deliver
services outlined in the design will be more likely if detailed design and
requirements iterations are not completed
The current implementation plan has tracked the critical path of HR and ICT through
implementation. The HR and ICT timelines cannot be collapsed further due to factors
including, but not limited to:




Legal regulation around HR consultancy time lines
Crucial role of engagement with UNISON and Federation Unions, where
timelines cannot be collapsed
Dependency on ICT solutions to enable future processes, where testing,
building and procurement timelines cannot be collapsed to deliver these
capabilities
Scale of the individual consultation exercise required given the number of
staff involved
Increased savings within Public Contact function
The key investment within Public Contact that drives downstream savings is in the
Resolution Team and Desk Based Enquiries capabilities. Removing this capability
would mean a reduction in Public Contact function costs of £1.9m but would eliminate
the possibility of the estimated £8.2m downstream savings.
Any additional savings would come at the cost of increased operational risk and should
be considered on a case by case basis to assess the level of risk that BCH is willing to
bear for greater savings. This could result in reduced service performance – increased
waiting times, shorter call handling time allowed – which would impact public
satisfaction and potentially public risk.
In addition to overall affordability, timescales to pay back the investment has been
highlighted as a key indicator of the attractiveness of the investment in Public Contact
collaboration.
Table 56 presents the payback period for the investment, considering both those
savings cashable by Public Contact and potentially cashable down-stream savings.
Payback is presented including inflation to show the actual cash payback.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
104
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
From a Financial Case perspective, implementation costs exclude Change Team
costs. The salaries of internal Change Team members will be paid regardless of
whether they are supporting the Public Contact Collaboration Project and have already
been budgeted, so there is no need for additional funding. There is also a consultancy
component to this cost. Consultancy costs would be paid out of a centralised fund that
is already included in budgets. Without the Collaboration Project this budget would still
be consumed to support different projects; therefore they are not relevant to the
Financial Case. The overall demands and resourcing requirement of the Public
Contact Change Team on the BCH change programme will be reviewed on an annual
basis.
Table 56: Financial Case payback
£m, including inflation
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
ICT Capital Investment
-0.56
-0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICT Revenue
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
HR Redundancy
0.00
0.00
-2.17
0.00
0.00
HR Relocation
0.00
0.00
-0.45
-0.21
-0.21
HR Recruitment
-0.05
-0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Change Team
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Estates
-0.03
-0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
Moving Hinchingbrooke ICT
0.00
-0.02
-0.13
0.00
0.00
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION
COSTS
-0.66
-0.71
-2.74
-0.21
-0.21
Implementation Costs
Cashable Benefits (against Athena-inclusive baseline)
Cashable Benefits
0.06
0.87
2.60
4.28
4.52
Net cash flow
-0.60
0.16
-0.14
4.08
4.32
Cumulative cash flow
-0.60
-0.44
-0.58
3.50
7.81
PAYBACK
FY 19/20
Cashable Plus Potential Cashable Benefits
Cashable Plus Potentiall Cashable
Benefits
0.06
0.87
3.30
12.93
13.36
Net cash flow
-0.60
0.16
0.56
12.72
13.15
Cumulative cash flow
-0.60
-0.44
0.12
12.85
25.99
PAYBACK
FY 18/19
With just cashable benefits the project is expected to pay back in 19/20; including
cashable and potentially cashable benefits, the project is expected to pay back in
FY18/19.
This section outlines:
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
105
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE



How implementation costs and ongoing operating costs will be split between
the three forces;
How this has been agreed (in line with wider BCH principles for funding
apportionment); and
The implications of this for each force based on the current modelled financial
impact of the project.
As a result of the CFO meeting 15 May 2015 the basic principles on apportionment of
the costs and savings of collaboration projects were agreed as follows:



Collaboration will result in apportionment of costs and savings on a demand
basis when information becomes available to sensibly inform this
apportionment;
In the interim, all collaboration costs and savings will be apportioned on the
basis of NRE, applying the ‘no loser’ principle that no force should have
higher operating costs as a result of collaboration (if the agreed
apportionment were to result in one force paying more for public contact than
before project implementation, the weighting would have to change);
However, each individual initiative will be considered on its own merits,
keeping the impact on the whole of collaboration in mind.
Currently the analysis is unavailable to determine how future demand could be
apportioned across the three forces. Therefore Public Contact has presented costs
and savings apportioned on the basis of NRE, applying the ‘no loser’ principle to Public
Contact savings.
The current NRE apportionment between the three forces is presented in Table 57.
Table 57: Funding split by 2015/16 Net Revenue Expenditure
Force
% split
Bedfordshire Police
24.4%
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
31.2%
Hertfordshire Constabulary
44.4%
The overall approach applied to determine the future Public Contact costs incurred and
savings achieved by each force is as follows:




Current cash costs to deliver the Public Contact function (excluding
apportioned estates costs) for each force were projected over 5 years
(including a number of one-off system / software investments as indicated by
ICT in some years) and inflation applied.
The assumed cost of the additional staff to deliver Athena was allocated to
each force on the basis of NRE. Existing staff costs were assumed to remain
at current proportions across the forces.
When the collaborated function goes live in March 2017, it is assumed that,
from this point on, Public Contact operating costs will be apportioned on the
basis of NRE. However, it is assumed that the income from leasing Copse
Court will be allocated solely to Cambridgeshire.
The net savings as a result of Public Contact collaboration (compared to
current costs plus Athena) were reviewed and the no force loses principle
applied where relevant.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
106
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE

Implementation costs have been apportioned to each force on the basis of
NRE.
The results of this approach on operating costs and savings (not including
implementation costs) for each force is broken down in Table 58.
Table 58: Operating costs and savings for each force (15/16 prices)
£m
15/16
Baseline excluding Athena
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Commentary
Bedfordshire
5.99
6.04
5.99
5.99
5.99
Cambridgeshire
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
Hertfordshire
11.97
11.97
12.10
11.97
12.11
TOTAL
27.66
27.71
27.79
27.66
27.80
Includes inflation and planned ‘one-off’ ICT
investments. Currently costs to run Public Contact
do not match NRE; Cambridgeshire puts in
relatively more cost (+3.4%), Bedfordshire puts in
relatively less (-2.7%). Hertfordshire spends
slightly less (-0.6%) than its share of NRE on
Public Contact relative to the other forces.
Bedfordshire
0.09
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Cambridgeshire
0.12
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
Hertfordshire
0.17
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
TOTAL
0.38
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
Athena Uplift
Split by NRE. This uplift is based on the uplift
required if the IMU is collaborated from January
2016. Implementing interim IMUs in each force will
be higher cost.
Baseline including Athena
Bedfordshire
6.08
6.61
6.56
6.56
6.56
Cambridgeshire
9.81
10.42
10.42
10.42
10.42
Hertfordshire
12.15
13.02
13.15
13.02
13.16
TOTAL
28.04
30.05
30.13
30.00
30.14
Represents the cost of the Public Contact function
if Athena is implemented but there is no wider
Public Contact collaboration.
Public Contact Collaboration Savings / Cost Increases without No Force Loses principle applied
Once each element of the collaborated TOM is
Bedfordshire
0.02
-0.19
0.20
-0.20
-0.20
delivered, the costs of those elements is
Cambridgeshire
-0.17
-0.40
-1.84
-2.36
-2.36
apportioned to each force on the basis of NRE.
This increases spend in Bedfordshire on
Hertfordshire
0.04
-0.55
-0.85
-1.46
-1.60
implementation in FY17/18 before end-state
savings can be realised). Estates income for
TOTAL
-0.11
-1.14
-2.49
-4.01
-4.15
Copse Court is fully allocated to Cambridgeshire.
Application of No Force Loses Principle
Bedfordshire
-0.02
0.00
-0.20
0.00
0.00
Cambridgeshire
0.06
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
Hertfordshire
-0.04
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The No Force Loses principle has been applied
based on guidance provided by the Change
Portfolio team.
Adjusted Public Contact Collaboration Savings
Bedfordshire
0.00
-0.19
0.00
-0.20
-0.20
Cambridgeshire
-0.11
-0.40
-1.70
-2.36
-2.36
Hertfordshire
0.00
-0.55
-0.79
-1.46
-1.60
TOTAL
-0.11
-1.14
-2.49
-4.01
-4.15
6.56
6.36
6.36
Due to one-off ICT investment in 19/20, 18/19
shows the ongoing annual savings against current
budgets for each force. After savings have been
applied to correct the current NRE imbalance,
(£3.20m; £2.11m to Cambridgeshire and £1.09m
to Hertfordshire) remaining savings (£0.82m) are
apportioned on the basis of NRE.
Adjusted Public Contact Operating Costs
Bedfordshire
6.08
6.42
Cambridgeshire
9.71
10.03
8.72
8.06
8.06
Hertfordshire
12.15
12.47
12.36
11.56
11.56
TOTAL
27.93
28.91
27.64
25.98
25.98
Represents the expected costs of Public Contact
over the next five years if both Athena and Public
Contact Collaboration are implemented as
planned, excepting the proviso that Athena costs
may be higher if implemented in each force in the
interim before collaboration.
Net Savings / Cost Increases on original Baseline excluding Athena
Bedfordshire
0.09
0.38
0.57
0.37
0.37
Cambridgeshire
0.01
0.33
-0.97
-1.63
-1.63
Hertfordshire
0.17
0.49
0.25
-0.42
-0.56
TOTAL
0.28
1.21
-0.15
-1.67
-1.81
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Due to the apportionment of Athena uplift costs to
forces on the basis of NRE (which is not subject to
the no force loses principle as all forces see an
increase), and application of the principle just to
collaboration savings, overall not all forces see a
cost reduction in years where there is an overall
cost saving on current budgets.
107
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
The final split of capital / revenue and implementation / operating costs to be funded by
each of the three forces, with no loser principle applied to operating costs is presented
in Table 59.
Table 59: Indicative project funding required from each force
£m, 15/16 prices
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
Funded by Bedfordshire
0.14
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
Funded by Cambridgeshire
0.18
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
Funded by Hertfordshire
0.26
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Capital Cost
0.59
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
Funded by Bedfordshire
0.02
0.01
0.64
0.05
0.05
Funded by Cambridgeshire
0.02
0.02
0.82
0.06
0.06
Funded by Hertfordshire
0.03
0.03
1.17
0.09
0.09
Total Revenue Cost
0.07
0.06
2.63
0.19
0.19
Implementation Costs
Capital
Revenue
Public Contact Ongoing Operating Costs
Revenue
Funded by Bedfordshire
6.08
6.42
6.56
6.36
6.36
Funded by Cambridgeshire
9.71
10.03
8.72
8.06
8.06
Funded by Hertfordshire
12.15
12.47
12.36
11.56
11.56
Total Revenue Cost
27.93
28.91
27.64
25.98
25.98
Funded by Bedfordshire
6.24
6.59
7.20
6.41
6.41
Funded by Cambridgeshire
9.91
10.24
9.54
8.12
8.12
Funded by Hertfordshire
12.44
12.78
13.52
11.64
11.64
TOTAL
28.59
29.61
30.27
26.18
26.18
Funded by Bedfordshire
6.24
6.67
7.44
6.75
6.88
Funded by Cambridgeshire
9.91
10.38
9.81
8.56
8.73
Funded by Hertfordshire
12.44
12.95
14.04
12.27
12.51
TOTAL
28.59
30.00
31.30
27.58
28.12
Total Costs
Total Costs including inflation
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
108
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
FINANCIAL CASE
As highlighted in Section 3.4.2, the current uncertainty in future Public Contact costs
as a result of the uncertainties within the Athena Programme mean that the numbers
presented in this case cannot be used for strict budgeting purposes. However, they
provide a reasonable indicator of the level of savings each force can expect to receive
as a result of Public Contact Collaboration.
As the project progresses and refines its cost and savings forecasts, and there is
increased clarity of the impact of Athena on Public Contact costs, the forecast budget
requirements will be updated and communicated to inform budget planning in 16/17
and beyond.
This Financial Case demonstrates that Public Contact costs will be above current
costs in the short-term, driven by additional resource requirements to enable an interim
Athena solution and to de-risk implementation. However, by 17/18 costs will fall below
current costs and therefore will be affordable against the current baseline.
This Case also shows that, due to the critical requirement to maintain management
levels of operational risk in the new function, the costs of Public Contact have not
reduced by 30% in the TOM. However, the TOM enables further potential savings in
Local Policing, which result in overall BCH savings in excess of the target by18/19.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
109
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
This Management Case demonstrates that the Governance Framework,
Implementation Roadmap / Approach and Project Team Structure, supported by
special advisors will provide the appropriate decision-making, control mechanisms, risk
management, benefits realisation, resources and plans to successfully deliver the
Public Contact Project in accordance with recognised best practice.
Effective change governance (i.e. clarity about what decisions are made, where and by
whom, and what criteria are used in reaching decisions as well as controlling progress
and managing risks) is critical to the delivery of the Public Contact Project. The
governance approach being taken follows the principles of Cabinet Office Guidance on
the Management of Portfolio and Managing Successful Programmes.
The Public Contact Implementation Board (PCIB) will ensure appropriate
arrangements are in place for effective governance and for monitoring of “business as
usual “service delivery. Given the phased and graduated implementation approach the
PCIB will develop detailed plans with agreed milestones to control the delivery of the
project. The PCIB will also maintain a visible Risks, Assumptions, Issues and
Decisions (RAID) Log to ensure appropriate control measures and mitigations are in
place. Exception reporting will be used by the PCIB where time, cost or quality
parameters exceed agreed tolerances. A Benefits Realisation Plan will be utilised to
ensure clear ownership, baselining, delivery and monitoring. A Project Implementation
Document (PID) will be produced as the first deliverable for the PCIB once this FBC
has been agreed. The PID will then be ‘baselined’ and act as a living document for the
entire lifecycle of the project. The PCIB will be chaired by the Chief Superintendent
(Public Contact) who will act as Project Lead. Senior Users on the Board will comprise
of functional leads from the main affected areas. Senior Suppliers will comprise of ICT,
Procurement, Human Resources, Estates, Legal, Finance and Communications
Change Leads. Assurance will be provided by the Portfolio Manager and Change
Benefits Lead with special advisers being considered given the scale, complexity and
risk associated with the project.
The progress of the Public Contact Project is reported to the Operational Support
Programme Board (OSPB). The OSPB will maintain oversight of delivery and will also
manage the inter-dependencies with other programmes and projects. Issues and
exceptions will also be reported to the OSPB for management, decision and resolution.
The Chair of the OSPB will be the Assistant Chief Constable lead from Hertfordshire
Constabulary who will be the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) and will ultimately be
accountable for delivery of the Public Contact Project.
The OSPB reports to the Joint Chief Officer Board (JCOB) where the three Chief
Constables will monitor progress of the overall change portfolio and its constituent
parts of which Public Contact is a high risk and high return project. Major decisions
relating to operational design and delivery will be taken to JCOB as well as any
exceptions and issues from the Public Contact Project and Operational Support
Programme.
Parallel to JCOB an Operational Support Governance Board (OSGB) will be
established on approval of the FBC which will be chaired by the Police and Crime
Commissioner. The ultimate purpose of the OSGB is to monitor, oversee and hold to
account the collaborated Operational Support services. This role will be fulfilled
through monitoring against Section 22 agreements, business plans, continuous
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
110
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
improvement plans and performance management frameworks. In the interim whilst
collaborated services are being implemented the OSGB will oversee implementation,
take key decisions in relation to procurement of services, ensure holding to account
arrangement will be fit for purpose and monitor the financial health of operational
support projects such as Public Contact. The OSGB will have representatives from
each of the six corporations sole.
Both JCOB and OSGB will escalates relevant information and report to the tri-force
Strategic Alliance Summit (SAS) where PCCs and CCs make the strategic change
decisions as well as monitor progress of collaborated departments. This is the ultimate
joint oversight body which on an annual basis will agree the business delivery plans for
collaborated functions, with CCs accountable to PCCs for delivery of these plans.
Performance reports and change progress will be fed up to the SAS. The SAS will set
the budget on an annual basis for collaborated functions.
Figure 15 shows how each of the boards that have oversight of the project interact and
their high level role.
Strategic Alliance Summit
3x CCs
3x PCCs
Delivers the strategic
direction for the Public
Contact project and
agrees to progress FBC to
implementation
Oversees the overall
progress of the Public
Contact project and its
interdependencies
Sets the strategic
direction for the Public
Contact Project and
agrees to progress the
Full Business Case
Joint Chief Officers
Board
(JCOB)
Operational Support
Governance Board
(OSGB)
3x CCs
Representatives from
each of the six
corporations sole
Monitors, oversees and
holds to account the
collaborated Operational
Support services
Operational Support
Programme Board
(OSPB)
SRO (Michelle Dunn)
Delivers the Public
Contact Project
Public Contact
Implementation Board
(PCIB)
Escalation Route
Current Heads of Public
Contact / Public Contact
Management Team once
in place
Figure 15: Public Contact Collaboration Board escalation route
External assurance will be sought at key gateways from externally appointed
consultants or the internal auditors to provide an independent assessment into the
change governance layers.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
111
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Implementation Approach
The approach to implementation has been defined in consultation with the following
groups of stakeholders, who will all play their part in delivering the collaborated model:





Public Contact Project Team;
Change Portfolio Office;
Senior stakeholders from the three Forces, including the SRO;
Public Contact business owners (who will be the Business Change Managers
responsible for driving out the benefits);
The enabling functions – HR, Estates, ICT and Procurement.
The approach sets out a number of principles which have been used to guide the
construction of the implementation plan, structure and governance. These were
presented in Section 4.6 as part of the implementation planning decision area and
focus on:



The overall approach to implementation planning;
HR and staff related implementation principles;
ICT related implementation principles.
Based on these principles an implementation plan has been developed, which will see
the first changes being delivered in December 2015, and the fully collaborated, twosite model live from March 2017. The project continues beyond this date to deliver
other phases of activity such as new ICT, continuous improvement, full benefits
realisation and business maturity.
Implementation Plan
The implementation plan is based on a phased roll-out, which breaks-down the key
changes being implemented into a number of releases. This helps to deliver early
benefit, and also de-risks the implementation. The releases are described as follows:

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)


Release A – Accelerated Implementation: Those changes which can be
made within the current four site model and do not rely heavily on new ICT.
They will deliver early benefit in the form of reduced headcount:
Interim Management Structure
Training Unit to be implemented to support training of new processes and
recruitment process
Resource Management Unit (RMU) to be expanded to support shift review
and workforce management during period of change and uncertainty
Oscar 1 role changes
Intelligence roles will be implemented following configuration of Oscar 1s
Performance framework and SLAs can be harmonised where shared
processes allow
Forensic Deployment process changes and integration with Dispatch
Release B1 – Process Harmonisation: Phase of implementation focused on
detailed design and process harmonisation across the core functions of: Call
Handling, Dispatch, IMU and the Admin Function. This harmonisation will help
to de-risk the delivery of the model on re-location, prove the new processes
(e.g. THRIIVES), and support early realisation of benefits.
Release B2 – Process Enhancements: Whilst harmonisation can deliver
some of the new processes prior to re-location, and drive commonality and
standardisation between the Forces, some processes can only be enhanced
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
112
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE




once the relocation has been completed and/or the new ICT is in place. An
analysis of the Level 0 processes has been undertaken to determine which
aspects will need to wait until Release B2, and can be found in Appendix Q.
Release C – Relocation: All staff moves to the new locations, including those
staff who are displaced by the moves and require alternative accommodation
or flexible working arrangements. This will also include the implementation of
resilience and business continuity plans.
Release D – Self Service delivery: As a key enabler of demand reduction,
and therefore supporting the achievement of headcount savings, the selfservice implementation will be managed as an integral part of this
Implementation Programme. This will include the delivery of: enhanced IVR,
Static Content, Online Directory, Online Tracking, Online Reporting and
Online appointments.
Release E – Change stabilisation: Phase focused on establishing stability
as cultural and process change is embedded. Driving a unified, flexible
culture is critical to delivering project benefits. Interim organisational structure
and additional staff coverage will be maintained while change is embedded,
over a three month period from go-live.
Release F – Post go-live iteration: Following go-live of the new model, this
phase will re-assesses the FTE requirements, and review lessons learned to
ensure the model is functioning as intended, and make any tweaks to the
operation. This phase will also commence the ongoing continuous
improvement programme, which is required to ensure the model evolves with
citizen expectations and technology advancements over the coming years.
This will help ensure the function continues to provide value for money and
the best possible service.
The plan also includes key enabling activities and milestones that are critical to
ensuring operational change can be delivered successfully. These include:






Extensive HR activity including shift review, staff consultations and liaising
with UNISON and Federations;
Procurement activity to maintain appropriate levels of external project support
to enable implementation, as well as to procure ICT systems and changes;
Development of detailed estates change plans, including ensuring alignment
with wider BCH estates strategies;
Regular review and update of forecast Public Contact costs to inform 16/17
and future budget cycles, ensuring sufficient funding is available for
implementation and operation of the TOM;
Ongoing communications activity with a particular focus on staff engagement
through implementation;
Delivery of new MI capability to meet operational and benefits management
requirements.
The high level implementation plan showing the timing of these releases is shown
below:
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
113
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Figure 16: Implementation Plan
114
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
More detail against each of the phases can be seen in Appendix Q, which contains
the emergent detailed implementation plan. This will ultimately provide the critical path
of activities that must be completed to schedule in order to deliver collaboration by the
anticipated go-live date; key areas of activity that are expected to be on the critical
path are:
Table 60: Critical path activities
Area
Rationale
Detailed Design
There are a number of key activities dependent on achieving
a certain level of maturity in the detailed design:


Individual HR consultations cannot take place until future
roles and shift patterns are defined and numbers of FTEs per
team confirmed;
Key ICT systems cannot be implemented until the detailed
requirement is confirmed, aligned to the detailed design.
HR Consultation, Negotiations and
Recruitment
HR activities are expected to be lengthy due to the large
number of staff that must be consulted and significant
recruitment effort to maintain performance through
implementation, particularly if large numbers of staff do not
relocate.
ICT Development and Procurement
A number of new systems will need to be procured to
support the TOM. ICT procurement and implementation is
critical to successful operation and therefore sufficient time
must be allowed to ensure the new systems are robust and
resilient.
Each phase will have a detailed project plan developed with this being ultimately
agreed by and reported to the Operational Support Governance Board. Once agreed
any deviations will be reported to the OSGB as exception reports and revisions being
approved.
As demonstrated by the plan there are a number of enablers, who will need to play a
significant role in making the change happen. Their plans have been developed
alongside the business change phasing, to ensure a joined-up single plan for
implementation, and to identify interdependencies between enablers and other change
initiatives.
In addition, a critical part of implementation will be the effective management of a
number of key interdependencies, as outlined in Section 3.4.5. These dependencies
will be managed as outlined in Table 61.
Table 61: Management of dependencies
Project / Activity
Management Approach
Athena
The interdependency with Athena will be closely managed with
individuals working across the two projects, representation of
each initiative on the other’s governance boards and regular PMO
alignment sessions to ensure plan and RAID coherency is
maintained.
tuServ
Public Contact will proactively maintain awareness of the progress
in tuServe delivery and will engage with tuServ delivery team to
ensure it is captured as part of detailed process design.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
115
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Project / Activity
Management Approach
Mobile Devices
Minimal engagement except to remain aware of progress of
mobile device roll-out and implications for Public Contact.
Self-Service
Will form a key part of Public Contact process design and Public
Contact will help drive adoption of Self Service through
implementation (included in implementation plan).
Workforce Automation
Minimal engagement except to remain aware of progress of
project progress and implications for Public Contact.
Local Policing and Crime
(B, C and H)
Local Policing will be proactively engaged through implementation
to ensure they understand the impact of Public Contact on them
and to capture the impact of any local changes on Public Contact
TOM detailed design. Engagement will be through direct
interaction with local policing leads as well as local change
departments.
Joint Protective Services
(JPS)
There is no significant dependency on JPS to deliver Public
Contact collaboration, but JPS will take learnings from Public
Contact implementation. The project will support JPS on request
to ensure learnings are passed on.
Collaborated
Organisational Support
Minimal engagement except to remain aware of progress of
project progress and implications for Public Contact.
Victims Hubs
Engagement will be maintained to ensure Public Contact delivers
any requirements by Victim Hubs.
Review of Terms &
Conditions
Minimal engagement initially except to remain aware of progress
of project progress and implications for Public Contact. Depending
on decisions within this project and progress made, closer
engagement may be required later on in implementation to ensure
the two change projects are aligned and minimise the impact on
staff.
ESN
The Project SRO is ACC Michelle Dunn and the business lead will
be engaged from within Public Contact. Individuals will be
engaged from within the business to ensure alignment and any
dependencies and time lines will be captured within
implementation plan
The full implementation plan is available in Appendix Q.
Implementation Project Structure
In order to deliver the plan outlined in Section 7.3.2, the main roles within the
Implementation Team have been identified as per Figure 17.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
116
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
BCH Governance
(Exec Lead)
SRO
(Project Lead)
Implementation Authority
Head of
FCR Cambs
Functional Management Team (post Release A
implementation)
Deputy Project
Lead
HR Lead
Implementation
Lead
Finance Lead
Procurement Lead
Athena
Liaison
Estates Lead - Herts
Detailed
Design
Team
Estates Lead - Cambs
Implementation
Specific MI (TBD)
Benefits MI
Detailed Design Lead
Athena
MI Lead
PMO
Comms and
Engagement
Lead
IMPLEMENTATION ENABLERS
Enablers Coordinator
DETAILED DESIGN
Self-Service
Implementation
Estates Lead - Beds
Head of
FCR Herts
Business Lead - ICT
Head of
FCR Beds
KEY
Part-time
contribution to PC
Critical Enabler
Implementation
Team
Most of
individual’s time
dedicated to PC
Vacant role
Temporary role
Figure 17: Implementation team structure
Vacant roles will be managed and filled as the FBC progresses into the
implementation phase. The FBC phase Design Team will be allocated appropriate
roles within Detailed Design and Implementation Team based on skills, experience
and business requirements. The appropriate staffing of Management Information roles
is being explored by the Project Team, incorporating advice and guidance from current
Heads of Department and Force Performance leads to ensure that the departmental
MI supports strategic performance requirements and is in line with current Police and
Crime Plans and organisational objectives. The inclusion of benefits within this section
will also ensure alignment with project objectives and avoid duplication of effort.
The full responsibilities of each of these roles are outlined in Appendix R. Table 62
provides a summary of the key teams within the structure.
Table 62: High level Implementation Team roles and responsibilities
Team / Key Role
Responsibilities
SRO

Implementation Lead and
Deputy - Project





Self-Service
Implementation
PMO








PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
Overall responsibility for implementation of a collaborated Public
Contact function across BCH
Promote the long-term vision for post-implementation across BCH
Realize and sustain the implementation benefits
Resolve escalated implementation issues
Coordinate delivery of overall implementation and MI
Review and sign-off of key implementation strategies prior to
implementation phase
Ownership and management of the Implementations plan
Identification and allocation of resources across BCH
Overall responsibility for implementation of Self-Service Project
Coordinate delivery of Self-Service with further Public Contact functions
Work alongside Detailed Design Team, Implementation Lead, and
Business Leads to ensure Self-Service is delivered effectively and
efficiently
Responsible for producing of the project management documentation
and managing processes
Production of Project Implementation Document (PID)
PMO products include: Change Log, Implementation Plan, Release /
Phase Detailed Project Plans, Status / Highlight Reports, RAID Log
117
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Team / Key Role
Responsibilities

Comms and Stakeholder
Engagement
Detailed Design
Implementation Enablers:
Estates; Procurement;
Human Resources; ICT;
Finance; Legal;
Communications
Benefits and
Management Information














Business Change
Managers
Implementation Lead






Implementation Authority





Liaise with Implementation Enablers to ensure Implementation Team
and Enablers are fully joined up and have full understanding of each
other’s requirements, dependencies and constraints
Agree and communicate meetings schedule and attendees
Produce Exception Reports
Ownership of and end responsibility for all internal and external
communications
Deliver staff and stakeholder engagement plan
Deliver Staff consultation communications
Design L3/4 processes required for each implementation phase
Complete detailed ICT and business requirements
Work alongside Implementation Teams and Business Leads to ensure
Detailed Design is embedded as intended, making any necessary
changes on Detailed Design when required
Ownership of the Implementation Strategy and plan for their area of
business
Understand all dependencies within their area of business with others
to ensure streamlined Implementation Plans are devised and delivered
Provide SME support to Detailed Design Team and Implementation
Lead/PMO
Design of Benefits Realisation Plan including baseline indicators
Setting the Performance Management and Management Information
frameworks
Putting in place the measurements and data collection arrangements to
support the benefits plan and performance framework
Responsible for driving out the benefits
Ensuring cultural change takes place
Embedding the new processes
Delivering continuous improvement
Control the detailed design to ensure that it is focused on meeting
business needs
To provide access to key element of BCH to ensure interoperability,
quality control, and integration of design with BAU
Approve overall design and agree standards
Overall responsibility for implementation of a collaborated Public
Contact function across BCH
Promote the long-term vision for post-implementation across BCH
Realize and sustain the implementation benefits
Resolve escalated implementation issues
The role of Business Change Managers will be crucial to the success of this project.
The BCMs will be operational leads in the areas of public contact, response, crime
investigation, intelligence and public protection that in addition to their day jobs in the
three forces will have responsibility for embedding the cultural change and driving out
business benefits. They will also ensure that the interface between their area of
responsibility and public contact is effectively designed and delivered.
Risk Management
Through the development of the TOM design and FBC a robust risk management
process has been established and maintained ensuring ongoing focus on key project
risks and driving activities to mitigate and / or escalate these risks, as outlined in Table
63.
Table 63: Project risk management process
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
118
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Step
Owner
Identify new risk
A risk can be identified by anyone working on the programme but the Project
Manager and Workstream Leads have specific responsibility for identifying new
risks and issues together with appropriate mitigating action plans. Once a new risk
is identified, the PMO is informed.
Project Team
Member
Complete new risk details
Each risk is defined in terms of the risk event, the cause of the risk and the effect of
the risk on the project (i.e. delay to delivery, increased costs).
Each risk is assessed, based on:


The likelihood of it occurring;
The potential impact should it occur.
Risk assessment scoring is as follows:
Likelihood Scores
21 – 50 %
Scale
0–5%
Risk Register Value
Likelihood Level
1
Very Low (1)
Low (2)
Medium (3)
High (4)
Very High (5)
Very Low (1)
Low (2)
Im pact Scores
Medium (3)
High (4)
Very High (5)
Objective Level
Cost
Time
Operational
Reputation
6 – 20 %
2
51 – 80 %
3
Affects short term
Minor and containable goals w ithin objective
impact
w ithout impact to long
term goals
Less than 0.5 % of the 0.6 – 1 % of the total
of total estimated
estimated project cost
project cost
Delays that are less
Delays that are likely to
than 2 w eeks
be in the region of
more than 2, and less
than 4 w eeks
Very minor operational Minor operational
impact
impact
Significant short term
damage and important
to outcome of long term
goals
1 – 2.5 % of total
estimated project cost
Very minor reputational Minor reputational
impact
impact
81 – 99 %
4
5
Significant detrimental
Prevents achievement
effect on achievement
of objective
of objective
2.6 – 5 % of total
estimated project cost
Greater than 5 % of
estimated project cost
Delays that are likely to
be in the region of
more than 4, and less
than 6 w eeks
Some operational
impact
Delays that are likely to
be in the region of
more than 6, and less
than 8 w eeks
Major operational
impact
Greater than 8 w eeks
delay
Some reputational
impact
Major reputational
impact
Sever reputational
impact
Project Team
Member with
PMO
Severe and large scale
operational impact
Additional risk details are added such as risk owner and risk controls (specific
actions required to manage and mitigate risks with owners for each action and
target completion dates).
Review risks
The PMO manages the risk register and, on a weekly basis, requests updates on
those risk control actions that are due that week.
The latest risk register is issued in advance of each Project Team and Tactical
meeting. As a standing agenda item, the Project Team is asked to review risks and
provide updates on:





Risk assessments and controls
New risks
Closed risks
Risks to be escalated to Programme level
Risks that have become issues
Project Team
Member with
PMO
The latest risk register is issued in advance of the Project Implementation Board.
As a standing agenda item, the Project Implementation Board:
Is made aware of the top risks and what is being done to manage them and agree
current approach / determine additional activities that should be undertaken
Agrees any risks that the Project Team propose to escalate to Programme level
Escalate risks
The Project Team completes a weekly update to the Portfolio Office, which
includes an assessment of the current level of risk held by the Project.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
PMO,
Programme /
Portfolio
119
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Step
Owner
Risks are reported via Highlight reports through to the Operational Support
Programme Board and can be escalated to the Portfolio Risk Register if deemed
appropriate. Issues and risks can be raised through weekly check point meetings
and mitigation measures are discussed with the Portfolio Change Team.
Office
Close risks
Risks will be closed when there is no longer any possibility of it materialising or
when it has materialised and become an issue. They will be marked as ‘Closed’
status with a statement on the rationale for closing the risk
PMO
Following this process, the current top risks that the project is managing are outlined in
Table 64. The full risk register is available at Appendix G.
Table 64: Top 5 project risks and mitigations
ID
PC_R05
Risk (event)
Causes
Effect
Mitigation and Controls
Insufficient staff
numbers to deliver
Public Contact
function
1) Poor
communications /
constantly changing
messages results in
staff uncertainty and
results in staff losses
2) Staff do not move to
new location(s)
3) Inability to recruit
and train new staff with
appropriate skillsets
1) Service failure /
reduced performance
levels
2) Loss of internal and
public confidence
3) Excessive cost
required to maintain
the function through
temporary staff etc.
4) Delayed
implementation to
ensure sufficient staff
available at new
location(s)
1) Establish clear
messages for staff and
structured communication
programme. Continued
use of open-door sessions
and engagement across
all public contact
functions, including Crime
Teams
2) Agree approach to
union engagement
3) Develop realistic
implementation plan
based on evidence-based
assumptions on
redundancy / recruitment
timescales
4) Include close
engagement with BCH
leaders in Implementation
Plan
5) Prepare collective
consultation material
6) Raised as part of the
implementation plan
1) Reduction in
baseline as a result of
other initiatives which
makes achieving
further savings more
difficult (and possibly
unnecessary from a
portfolio perspective)
2) Channel shift /
process improvement
savings are less than
hoped
3) Level of risk
required to enable
further savings not
acceptable
1) Project is forced to
implement a solution
that finds more savings
but increases risk and
decreases savings
2) Further cuts are
required in other areas
of BCH policing that
have negative impact
on overall police
performance
1) Establish CFO
engagement cycle to
ensure early visibility of
any possible savings
shortfalls and agree
resultant actions
2) Complete FBC analysis
3) If there is a savings
shortfall, define what
assumptions could be
changed to increase
savings and the resultant
impact on performance
and risk
4) The impact of ATHENA
to be recognised and
allocated to separate
financial resource
There is a risk that, due
to staff losses through
implementation or an
inability to recruit
sufficient numbers of
skilled resources within
planned timescales,
there is not enough staff
to deliver a robust
Public Contact operating
model.
Insufficient financial
savings
There is a risk that the
Public Contact project
will not achieve the
target 30% savings
PC_R14
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
120
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
ID
PC_R 18
PC_R 23
PC_R08
Risk (event)
Causes
Effect
Mitigation and Controls
Athena impacts
significantly on design
work and planned
timescales
There is a risk that
decisions made on the
scope of the IMU and
the requirement for
public contact functions
to perform data capture
processes on Athena,
will result in re-work of
existing design work,
create workload uplift
and impact on
timescales.
1) Lack of visibility and
understanding of
Athena system,
processes and effort
estimates
2) Significant
dependency on
external decisions
3) Mis-alignment of
decision making
timelines between
Athena & Public
Contact
4) Outstanding design
impact questions for
Athena
5) Lack of clarity of
present roles which
will be absorbed into
IMU
1) Delays to the design
of processes, role
profiles and demand
estimates
2) Uplift of time taken
to perform tasks in
scope across all public
contact roles
3) Uncertainty around
some areas of
function/ process
design
4) Lack of clarity of
cost of IMU
1) Hold meetings to
understand scope and
governance / ways of
working and all decisions
of Athena
2) Hold regular design
coherency meetings with
Athena
3) Review process
understanding with
Athena team members
4) Capture and track
external dependencies
through the Project Plan
and monitor against plan
5) Capture all outstanding
design questions for
Athena and review with
the Athena team
6) Athena governance and
activity being reviewed
and the scope for the
design and
Implementation of the IMU
has been agreed.
7) Member of Athena
Team fully seconded into
Public Contact
Collaboration
8) Management of risk
from Athena through
R076, R984, R069, R034
Insufficient access to
Local Policing
resource to assist in
defining resolution
demand
There is a risk that the
lack of input from Local
Policing results in
demand being defined
based on a single Public
Contact led view
1) Ongoing work with
Local Change team
has placed resource
constraints on Local
Policing.
2) Resource constraint
is due to high volume
of demand from other
Change Projects/
Programmes
1) Resolution demands
defined by Public
Contact only and
without local policing
having the ability to
inform approach
2) Possible negative
impact on opportunity
to further reduce
downstream demand.
1) Ongoing work with
Local Change to identify
how to secure this data /
information.
2) Management of
demand for local policing
across all Change
Projects/ Programmes.
Implemented solution
does not meet the
agreed design/
requirement
There is a risk that the
final Public Contact
solution delivered does
not meet the established
and agreed / design
requirements
1) Disconnect and lack
of engagement
between those writing
the requirement
(Design Team) and
those delivering the
requirement (enablers
and implementation
team)
2) Requirement is too
ambitious and not
tempered by what is
realistically deliverable
3) Captured
requirement is not fitfor-purpose and this is
not noted until
implementation has
started
1) Performance may
not meet customer
expectations as it
focuses in the wrong
areas / ICT solution
does not deliver what
is required
2) Processes are not
optimised to support
the real requirements,
either generating risk
to service delivery or
driving inefficiencies
(or both)
1) Continued collaboration
between enablers &
design work streams to
ensure requirements are
fit for purpose and
solutions are being
delivered at pace
2) Enablers to present
emergent solutions to the
DT as they develop within
the Enablers workstream
Benefits Management
Benefits management and benefits realisation arrangements will be conducted in line
with Managing Successful Programmes guidance.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
121
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
The project benefits have been identified and refined through a series of workshops
and meetings with:




The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO);
Business Change Managers (BCMs – Superintendents and police staff
equivalents managing the daily business);
Public Contact Change Project Lead.
Public Contact Subject Matter Experts (SME) and Practitioners (SPOCs)
The benefits map presented in OBC has been subsequently updated and is presented
in Figure 18 with benefits in green, enablers in yellow and objectives in blue.
Phase 1 - 4
Rationalisation of
Public Contact staff
to fewer locations
Phase 5
Phase 6
More effective use
of estates
BC
Introduction and
marketing of SelfService
BC
Consistent use of
THRIVE across all
three forces driving
contact response
BC
Increased public
contact access
through lower cost
channels
Lower annual staff
cost
Greater victim
access to
information
Improved Public
satisfaction with first
contact
More effective
management of
demand
Delivery of a fit-forpurpose ICT solution
BC
BC
New shift pattern
and ways of working
BC
Lower overall
annual tri-force
estates cost
To deliver a high
level of public and
victim centred
services
Reduced no. of
unnecessary
deployments
Service
Fewer record
information errors
Better signposting
to other agencies
Clear focus on
training, staff
development and
progression
To deliver up to 30%
savings
Improve staff
satisfaction
Increase flexibility to
changes in demand
To effectively
manage operational
risk
To create a healthy
culture for staff with
continuous
improvement
Figure 18: Benefits map
The project benefits realisation plan (BRP – Appendix S) provides more detail on how
these benefits will be delivered and measured including roles and responsibilities. A
high level summary of how benefits will be measures through and post implementation
is presented in Table 65. These measures will be reviewed and refined with KPIs and
data sources through implementation.
Table 65: Benefits, owners and measures
Benefit
Owner
Measure
1. Improved staff satisfaction
SRO
a. Improved staff retention. Quantitative measure
b. Increase staff attendance. Quantitative measure
c. Staff survey. Qualitative assessment.
2. Reduced number of
unnecessary deployments
SRO
a. Appointments being made wherever appropriate
Qualitative assessment.
3. Improved public satisfaction
SRO
a. Surveys of public satisfaction with first contact.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
122
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Benefit
Owner
with first contact
Measure
Qualitative assessment.
b. Complaints data. Qualitative assessment.
c. Service recovery data and satisfaction follow up
calls. Quantitative and qualitative assessment
d. Reduction in secondary call handling/hand-offs.
Quantitative measure
4. Fewer record information
errors
SRO
a. Qualitative assessment by managers
5. Increased public contact
access through lower cost
channels
SRO
a. Website usage-Quantitative assessment – website
hits, number of uses of new capability.
b. Survey results Quantitative and qualitative
assessment
c. Reduced number of Non-emergency calls.
Quantitative measure
d. Reduce Average Handling Time (AHT)Quantitative
measure
e. Time Savings in telephony call handling Time saving
Quantitative measure
6. Greater victim access
to information
SRO
a. No. of individuals accessing online crime tracking
Quantitative measure
7. Better signposting to other
agencies
SRO
a. New channel response data. Quantitative measure
9. Lower annual staff cost
SRO
a. Break down various components of revenue budget
(e.g. reduce FTE, shift premium, overtime). Allows for
tracking of cost decline
10. Lower overall annual triforce estates cost
Estates
Department
a. Revenue measure Quantitative measure
11. More effective management
of demand
SRO
a. No. of contacts to resolve call. Quantitative measure
b. No. or proportion of first point of contact resolutions
Quantitative measure
12. More effective use of estates SRO
a. Reduction in estate costs. Quantitative measure
13. Increased flexibility to
changes in demand
a. How well does the new model cope with unexpected
incidents Qualitative assessment.
SRO
Benefits tracking will start as soon as practicable after the FBC has been agreed. It will
be a focus at key milestones in the implementation plan, as well as 6 and 12 months
after implementation to inform the project's Post Implementation Review (PIR). These
milestones will be confirmed as the project move towards implementation.
Table 66 indicates when the project will start to realise benefits:


Light green indicates quarterly savings up to £250k;
Medium green indicates quarterly savings up to £500k;
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
123
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE

Dark green indicates quarterly savings of greater than £500k.
In line with the implementation plan, the Project Team expects to start seeing some
financial benefit in the second half of 2015/16 but the vast majority of financial benefit
will be seen after March 2017, at which point the new TOM will go live. Benefits will
gradually increase through 2017/18 as the new operating model settles with final endstate benefits expected to be achieved by March 2018.
Table 66: 'Drops' of financial benefits
2015/16
Q1
Q2
Q3
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Police Officers
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Police Staff
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Estates Rental Income
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ICT
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Savings in Quarter
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Incremental Savings
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative Savings
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.4
4.4
5.4
6.4
7.4
The Public Contact Project Team will, through implementation, ensure the appropriate
data is available to track the benefits (including data to track the cost of benefits
delivery and to establish benefits management).
The Head of the Tri-Force Public Contact team will be responsible for ensuring that the
necessary business changes take place to ensure Benefits are realised, taking
remedial action where necessary.
Progress towards Benefits will be tracked at the Operational Support Programme and
Governance boards. There may also be a requirement to report progress at local
performance boards. The SRO is responsible for ensuring benefits are realised in their
programme, and dependencies are managed and is, in turn, accountable to the Joint
Chief Officer Board and Strategic Alliance Summit.
Stakeholder and Change Management
Through implementation, change management will form a critical component of
successful delivery and will comprise effective stakeholder engagement and
communications. Current arrangements for stakeholder engagement will be
supplemented with the establishment of change champions, business change
managers, as well as through HR consultations and presentations.
The Public Contact Collaboration Project has a large number of stakeholders
(leadership, police officers and police staff across the three forces, the public, other
emergency services etc.) with differing requirements from Public Contact, which will
need to be prioritised and managed in a coherent way to design and deliver an
effective TOM.
It is important that all stakeholders are aware of key decisions especially those who
can have a high influence on the success of the project.
A stakeholder Engagement Plan for the Strategic Alliance will be owned by the
Change Portfolio Office. This plan will clearly highlight the internal and external
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
124
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
stakeholders and where responsibility lies for ensuring these stakeholders are updated
as projects develop.
To date we have ensured that all internal stakeholders have been kept up to date and
at appropriate points press releases have been issued to inform the public/external
parties (may also want to include reference to any other conversations the project
team have had with areas such as blue light, neighbouring/national forces and other
partners where there could be a potential change to the way we interact with them).
On conclusion of the group consultation and decisions on the final detailed design
there will be a requirement to communicate and engage more directly with external
stakeholders prior to signing of any Section 22 arrangements.
Special advisers will be used in a timely and cost-effective manner in accordance with
the Treasury Guidance: Use of Special Advisers. In the Change Portfolio Office there
are already specialists in the areas of change: project management; finance; human
resources; procurement; benefits management; legal; and communications. Over and
above this it is identified that the following will be required:
Table 67: Special adviser requirements for Public Contact
Specialist Area
Advice and Guidance Required
Detailed Design and
Implementation
Expertise in designing and implementing Target Operating Models
within Public Contact and to assist the organisation in ensuring
robustness in the detailed design around the proposed operating model
HR Support
Expertise in dealing with a number of concurrent consultations during a
complex staff transition. Providing specialist skills in terms of
employment legislation and guidance in staff relocations and role
restructure
The content of this FBC will inform development of the Section 22 agreement for
Public Contact collaboration, which will formalise the responsibilities, function and
operation with regards to the collaborated unit across all three forces. The template
Section 22 document is available at Appendix T.
The Equalities Impact Assessment for the Public Contact Collaboration Project is
available at Appendix U. It highlights the people that will be impacted by the project in
order to note any implications for compliance with equalities duty obligations and how
these will be managed.
A Privacy Impact Assessment will help BCH identify the most effective way to comply
with data protection obligations and meet individuals’ expectations of privacy. This will
allow BCH to identify and fix problems at an early stage, reducing the associated costs
and damage to reputation which might otherwise occur and will be completed as part
of implementation.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
125
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Immediate Priorities
There are a number of immediate priorities for implementation, for which detailed plans
will need to be finalised by August 2015:






Athena: The interim IMU solution, which will need to be in place to support
the Athena go-live across the three Forces, by January 2016, is likely to have
an impact on other aspects of Public Contact. Therefore careful consideration
of how this solution will be delivered, and what changes can be made in
Public Contact to support it, whilst moving us towards the end-state, will be
required. This work will fall-out of the Athena design process in July 2015.
Estates: Confirmation of the Estates strategy and plan to move the requisite
number of people into the two site model is required. This is likely to have
implications for other teams who will need to be dispersed. Fine tuning of the
desk and floor-space requirements, in conjunction with ICT needs, will allow
the development of the detailed plan, and any interim steps that are required.
This work should take place in August and September 2015.
Formal consultation with Staff Associations and UNISONs: The HR and
associated consultation timeline is complex, due to the differences in the
three Force baselines, different terms and conditions and the unknowns
regarding how many people will be willing to move. Formal overarching
consultation with UNISONs and Staff Associations will commence w/c 20th
July and will run for the duration of the implementation period. HR have been
an integral part of the programme to date, and heavily involved in the
completion of this Full Business Case. So whilst there is still work to do on the
detailed planning, there is a good level of confidence that the moves can be
achieved within the timescales proposed.
Procurement: Assessment of existing contracts against the identified
requirements and putting in place plans for procurement of any new systems
and requirements.
Section 22: Interim Section 22s will be required for both the single Head of
Function and then sequentially for the single SMT.
ICT: Whilst a large amount of the change required to deliver the future model
is concerned with people, process and organisation structure, along with reconfiguration of existing ICT systems, the end-state model is dependent on
some new ICT functionality. The functional requirements are in place, and the
ICT team now need to architect the final solution with the support of vendors,
to prove the proposed delivery timelines and increase confidence in the cost
to deliver. The development of this new ICT, in addition to reconfiguring
existing systems, is critical to delivery of the TOM.
All of these activities will bring an increased level of confidence to the implementation
plan and allow the programme to move into the implementation phase, on agreement
of this FBC. As part of the detailed implementation planning, following the FBC
approval, tolerances will be set for the time, cost and quality aspects of the project.
Any variation beyond a tolerance will result in the production of an exception report
which will escalate through the governance bodies as advised by the Change Portfolio
Office.
Milestones, Current Approvals and Future Decisions
The key upcoming milestone is the approval of this FBC to allow the programme to
proceed to implementation.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
126
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
MANAGEMENT CASE
Following approval there are number of milestones that will follow:








July 2015: Confirmation of the Athena business design and timelines for
implementation, including dependencies on Public Contact implementation.
TBC 2015: Commence procurement for ICT solution
TBC 2015: Complete procurement for ICT solution and award contract
October 2015: Online crime reporting and Webchat go-live
January 2016: Athena go-live
January 2016: Interim IMU go-live
March 2017: Re-location to two sites complete (new model live)
March 2018: End-state achieved and implementation complete
These will be a key priority of overall implementation plan delivery management and
progress against these milestones will be reported via governance processes as
described in this Management Case. It is expected that throughout this process the
Programme will remain in dialogue with the PCCs via the Strategic Alliance, and seek
support on any decisions required during this process which will materially impact the
solution, as described by this FBC.
It is recommended that, on the basis of the evidence provided within this FBC, the
Project Team progresses to implementation phase following the Strategic Alliance
Summit on 9 July 2015, with the objective of moving completing the detailed TOM
design, starting staff consultations and ensuring project momentum is maintained.
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
127
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked
APPENDICES
The appendices supporting the FBC are not embedded within the document due to the
large size of some of the files. As a consequence they are sent as additional
attachments to accompany the FBC.
Table 68 presents the appendices that underpin this FBC.
Table 68: FBC Appendices
Number
Appendix
A
National Picture of Contact Management Collaboration
B
Digital Public Confidence Survey
C
Victim Survey
D
Relevant Policies Detail
E
Alignment across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Forces
F
Athena IMU Decision Paper
G
RAID Log
H
Assumptions
I
TOM Summary
J
Requirements
K
Process Maps
L
Balanced Scorecard Template
M
ICT Vision and Design Principles
N
Design Authority Governance Pack
O
Public Contact Operational Decisions for the TOM
P
Location Decision Paper
Q
Implementation Plan
R
Implementation Team Roles and Responsibilities
S
Benefits Realisation Plan
T
Section 22 Template
U
Equalities Impact Assessment
PC FBC_V1 00 External Publication
128
OFFICIAL – Not Protectively Marked