Report - Review of eGov - Follow-Up Report - 14 March 2018

Public Accounts Committee

Review of eGov – Follow-Up Report

Presented to the States on 14th March 2018

P.A.C. 1/2018

Contents

1. Public Accounts Committee Membership & Remit ...................................................... 1
2. Process and Evidence Gathering .................................................................................. 1
3. Chairman's Foreword ..................................................................................................... 2
   4. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ............................................................. 3
4. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................ 4
5. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 1 – Strategy ...................................... 6
6. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 2 – Public Sector Reform ............... 8
7. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 3 – Leadership ............................... 11
8. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 4 – People and Skills .................... 12
9. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 5 – Digital Jersey ........................... 14
10. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 6 – Projects and Programmes ..... 15
11. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 7 – Budgeting ................................ 18
12. Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix 1: Executive Response to C&AG Recommendations .......................................... 24 Appendix 2: Executive Response to PAC (1st) Report .......................................................... 28 Appendix 3: eGov vision' illustration .................................................................................... 30

1. Public Accounts Committee Membership & Remit

1. The Public Accounts Committee's remit is different to that of other Scrutiny Panels in that it has a retrospective perspective and holds States Officers, rather than States Members, to account for their implementation of policy and procedures. It takes a retrospective look at whether public funds have been applied for the purpose intended by the States and whether sound financial practices have been applied throughout the administrations of all States departments. It reports its findings to the States Assembly.
2. The PAC incorporates both States Members and non-States Members:

Constable of St John, Christopher Taylor , Chairman (from September 2017) Deputy Judith Martin of St Helier, Vice-Chairman (from October 2017) Deputy Montfort Tadier (from October 2017)

Mr Robert Parker

Mr Michael Robinson (Lead Reviewer for this Review)

2. Process and Evidence Gathering

1. A (follow-up) Public Hearing was held with the former Chief Executive, States of Jersey, Mr John Richardson and the Business Change Director (responsible for the eGov Programme), Mr Jonathan Williams on 27th November 2017.
2. Email correspondence, departmental papers including confidential reports to the Council of Ministers, and summaries of oral evidence inform the main body of this report. The Lead Reviewer has also met with key members of the eGov team. All information (unless noted as confidential, in which case it has been paraphrased) utilised by the PAC to compile this report is available on the Scrutiny Website: Scrutiny.gov.je.

3. Chairman's Foreword

The PAC undertook this follow up review because it was keen to see that its recommendations were not just accepted, but also to ensure that they were implemented.

The PAC wishes to emphasise that it embraces digital technology's potential to transform States departments. It can and should underpin a better way of working for staff, and create a better service for the public. Therefore it wants to state that it is in favour of the implementation of the eGov programme and wishes to see the necessary investment in a radically new and modernised way of working, supported by up-to-date IT systems. The eGov programme must be flexible and responsive to the needs of its customers.

The PAC wants to see evidence that there is the necessary buy-in' not just from Chief Officers, but all the staff all the way through the departments. We want to see cross-working between departments which is essential to break down the silo' mentality of individual departments that we hear so much about.

The eGov programme must be efficient and effective and provide good value for money to the taxpayer, even if that means spending money up front to invest in streamlining services and updating technological support.

The Public Accounts Committee has been frustrated in its efforts to see a clear strategy document serving as a focal point of reference for all people involved in delivering this programme.

We have been sent vast amounts of diagrams and spreadsheets, but we are yet to see anything that convinces us the individual projects, or indeed, the overall strategy, are working to Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely (SMART) objectives. And so, we cannot measure progress, or see tangible outputs, or know that if something has gone wrong, that lessons have been learned so that the next project attempt will be successful.

The eGov programme has a sizeable budget – and it has already spent a significant proportion of that allocation – and it will need more in order to see it through to completion. But in order to get those resources – not just money, but the right people and skills – and the proper buy-in' to the whole scheme, there has to be greater clarity, focus and proper accountability.

The PAC is concerned enough about budgeting procedures to send a message to the Chief Minister's Department and the Treasury and Resources Department, asking that they investigate what appears to be retrospective forecasting' in its budget procedures. It will be asking the new PAC, post-elections, to follow up this matter. The PAC strongly urges the eGov team and the Chief Executive to ensure that each and every eGov project is scoped to provide clear, meaningful and measurable outcomes, backed by tangible project plans with realistic timescales and clear budgeting.

On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I would like to thank those who have contributed to this review in giving evidence, either orally or in writing, the Comptroller and Auditor General for her technical support, PAC member Mr Mike Robinson for taking the lead on this review, all of the support staff for their assistance and our officer for her hard work and support throughout.

4  Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Strategy

Public Sector Reform

Leadership

People and Skills

Budget

5. Introduction and Background

1. In May 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) presented to the States a report entitled eGovernment'[1]. The report contained 21 recommendations which included the need to clarify the vision and strategy for the eGov programme. For the purpose of this report, the PAC accepts the distinction made by the Chief Executive, between eGov as a defined change programme with a set budget, lifetime and set of deliverables, and eGovernment, which is a larger ongoing digital transformation of government services. The Executive Response to the C&AG's recommendations are set out in full in Appendix 1.

Executive Response to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report

2. Although the Executive accepted most of the C&AG's 21 recommendations in full and the remainder  in  principle,  the  PAC  was  surprised  to  find  that  most,  if  not  all,  of  the recommendations had been assigned to the eGov programme director (now the Business Change Director, Mr Jonathan Williams) to implement. The PAC was concerned that this could indicate there was a lack of corporate responsibility or "buy-in" by the Corporate Management Board (CMB).

First eGov Report of PAC

3. The  PAC  undertook  a  review  of  its  own,  in  order  to  evaluate  both  the  adequacy  of arrangements for the eGov programme and the Executive Response (Chief Minister's Department) to the C&AG's report. It held a public hearing in March 2017 with the then Chief Executive, Mr John Richardson and the Business Change Director, Mr Jonathan Williams[2], together with Mr Andrew Scate (Director of Public Sector Reform).
4. Over the course of the review, the PAC was sent a proliferation of infographics, diagrams and roadmaps, none of which helped to form a clear and common understanding of the core purpose of the programme and of the high level outcomes that the programme was designed to  deliver.  When  pressed  by  the  PAC  to  produce  a  strategy  with  defined  objectives, timescales and budget, the Chief Executive argued that that would constitute a "delivery plan" and distributed the "Roadmap" infographic[3], below:

5. The PAC agreed that the diagram showed a "vision" for the future but did not accept that it was a substitute for a written strategy, with clear links to the whole of the reform programme.
6. The PAC subsequently presented a report on eGov, in June 2017[4], stressing that it had found it difficult to identify a single strategy document serving as a focal point of reference for eGov stakeholders. It therefore urged the Executive to provide greater clarity, focus and proper accountability:

Despite our best efforts, the (only partially measurable) outcomes remain obscure. Lines of accountability are neither well enough defined nor functioning effectively at the highest level of this major change programme.

The projects that form part of eGov must be scoped and designed to deliver clear, meaningful and measurable outcomes, backed by tangible project plans with realistic timescales and clear budgeting. There should be greater clarity for the public as to precisely what the programme vision is and what the accountable parties are responsible for delivering – and by when.

We look forward to seeing rather more evidence of these practices as the next phase of the programme gets underway in earnest.'

Executive Response to the PAC's eGov Report

7. The PAC received the Executive Response to its report in August 2017 (set out in full at Appendix 2). Once the Committee had been re-established with a new Chairman and members, in September 2017, it considered that response in more detail. The PAC noted that all 7 recommendations had been accepted and most were to be implemented by the Chief Executive. However the PAC considered that the Executive Response was somewhat vague and had not addressed the issues of specific action that the PAC had called for.
8. The PAC accepts that inevitably, there is a time lag between acceptance and implementation of recommendations, but the PAC considered that progress on acting upon some of them was unacceptably slow. The PAC wanted to examine what was preventing the eGov team (and the Chief Minister's Department or the Corporate Management Board) from addressing the issues, implementing necessary changes, or establishing a clear timetable and milestones against which to measure progress.

Follow-Up Hearing and the Purpose of this Report

9. On Monday 27th November 2017, the PAC held a follow up hearing in an attempt to establish clarity from the former Chief Executive Officer (John Richardson) and the Business Change Director (eGovernment) (Jonathan Williams) on the responses given. This report seeks to set out the answers received by the eGov team and the continued concerns of the PAC.

6. Executive Response to PAC Recommendation 1 – Strategy

1. The PAC was concerned that there is no clear and comprehensive strategy document that serves as a focal point of reference for the eGov programme. It considered that an inevitable consequence of this was that the public cannot form a clear and common understanding of the core purpose of the programme and of the high level outcomes that the programme was designed to deliver. It therefore recommended that the core vision' be made public with clear and  unequivocal  SMART  (specific,  measurable,  achievable,  relevant  and  time  bound) objectives.
2. This recommendation was accepted and allocated to the Director of eGov (now Business Change Director) to deliver. The departmental response indicated that:

The original programme vision remains the same as it did in the business case - It will be recommunicated making clear the distinction between the programme and the broader digital transformation ambitions.'

3. At the public hearing on 27th November 2017 with the former Chief Executive Officer and the Business Change Director, the PAC asked whether the recommunication' due by Quarter 3 of 2017, had occurred and was told that the original vision' (created in 2012 as part of the business case) had been reviewed and was still a very accurate reflection of what eGov is trying to achieve.
4. The Business Change Director provided an A4 pictorial version of the vision' which purported to show the work undertaken in the last 18 months, as below (reproduced actual size in Appendix 3):

5. The Business Change Director explained the progress made and the PAC recognised that a significant amount of work had been undertaken to move the eGov programme forward. However, no scoping documentation had been produced to help the Committee understand

the aims, budget, timescales and other strategic factors which are essential at the planning stage of a project. Having wanted to ascertain whether basic principles for setting objectives in a project (such as SMART) had been adhered to, the Committee was concerned that they had not. It also concluded that, although the pictures and diagrams were informative, they were no substitute for a clear written strategy.

7. Executive Response to Recommendation 2 – Public Sector Reform

1. All of the 21 recommendations of the C&AG's review of eGov had been assigned to the Director of eGov (now the Business Change Director), Jonathan Williams. The PAC had been concerned that even policy objectives, including aligning eGov to wider Public Sector Reform governance, had been so assigned. In prior correspondence[5], the Business Change Director described some of his additional (non-core eGov) activities and commented that he was therefore well positioned to retain ownership of a number of actions seemingly outside eGov, namely:

Alignment with PSR – Working closely with Director of PSR, to align new governance arrangements such as the Technology Design Forum (TDF), the Design Authority (DA) and the Corporate Change Portfolio Office (CCPO) and sitting on the Strategic Board.

PSR Vision and Principles – One of a small group established to build a vision and set of organisational principles to describe and guide the future direction of the States of Jersey.

2. In its own review of eGov, the PAC stated its concern about an over-reliance on the Business Change Director and recommended that the Chief Executive and the Director of Public Sector Reform should lead departments through organisational culture change and establish corporate, departmental and individual targets for the implementation of eGov.
3. By way of the Executive Response to the PAC's recommendation 2, the PAC was advised that significant work was already underway across the States to deliver transformed services. This task had been allocated to the Director of Public Sector Reform (concurrent with his role as Chief Officer of the Planning and Environment Department) and the (former) Chief Executive.
4. The PAC was told that the Corporate Management Board (CMB) would provide to the Chief Executive, a list of services available online at present, those currently in development and a plan for the implementation of future services'. It was further maintained that departmental initiatives in relation to eGov would be discussed in one-to-one sessions and in Performance Review and Appraisals (PRAs), and that eGov infrastructure would continue to be delivered by eGov and ISD (information Services Department) teams.

CMB List

5. At its follow-up public hearing in November 2017, the PAC asked the eGov team to produce the list' from the CMB to the Chief Executive, as mentioned in its Executive Response. It was advised that there were in fact two separate lists providing details of the different strands of the eGov programme. The first itemised all the initiatives that eGov has funded or part funded or supported including budget and deliverables' and the second contained information that was (mostly) already available on the test website.[6] The PAC was assured that as the prioritisation process enabled more services to be put on the website, a stream of precise measurements of usage' would become available.[7] Noting that it did not have access to the test website, the PAC asked that it be supplied with those lists.
6. Subsequently, the PAC received an A3 spreadsheet, entitled "Supplied in Confidence – eGov deliverables as at 30/11/17", via email on 22 January 2018, together with an A4 sheet entitled "eGov and other digital transformation – high level timeline." The PAC asked if they could reproduce both documents in this report but were advised they contained sensitive commercial information.

7. The PAC challenged the need for confidentiality and was told:

"... most of the projects have a single supplier which will be known in the industry, and therefore, in this instance if we publish costs, competitors may be at an advantage for any future work that is tendered."[8]

8. Whilst the PAC has honoured this request and has not included them in this report, it considers the reasons given for non-publication are poor, especially in the case of the latter document, the high level timeline.'

Timeline

9. The PAC noted that the list of eGov deliverables' seemed to be a type of budget spreadsheet and thus it is dealt with separately in Chapter 12. The timeline paper simply lists the eGov components, that are Digital ID, customer website, integration layer, people directory, ICAR (Income Collection and Reconciliation System), Business Directory, Business Website and Business Services. eGov capability includes Design Authority and Digital Leadership and there is a further section for "Services in Website" which records that there are 50+ such services. The timeline shows activity up to Q3 of 2018 and indicates (usually with one word) which quarter a component will be designed, built, be launched or go live'.
10. The PAC was disappointed to note that, despite there being a proliferation of data, there appears to be a paucity of meaningful, measurable outputs. For example, it noted that in the comments' section of the timeline sheet, the live' date would vary according to business requirements'. Another comment relating to the Business Directory stated, timescales and deliverables may vary once design signed off'. In respect of the Business Services, the comment was, service prioritisation determines what is delivered and when'. As far as 2018 services are concerned, it was noted that selection conditional on digital ID availability and resource allocation'.
11. The PAC has already commented on the need for an overall vision and strategy for eGov which would enable it to be a successful and an integral part of public sector reform. In the preceding chapter of this report, it has reiterated the urgent need for SMART criteria to be applied to all projects which form part of the eGov programme. It remains very concerned that this is not being done. There appears to be an over-emphasis on the IT aspects of the programme, for example, the Committee was taken through a lengthy presentation on the latest developments of the single portal, an interactive map, and the work towards a single database[9], all of which will be extremely important in the development of the eGov programme, but most of which do not have clearly defined budgets and/or timelines.

Streamlining Services

12. At a previous public hearing with the PAC, the former Chief Executive had been challenged on progress with public sector reform, and had stated that streamlining was key as was providing central management information. In determining the provision of core and frontline services, he commented that he would first go through a re-engineering and streamlining of services to get the system right[10]'.
13. The PAC accepts that this streamlining of services is very important and indeed is part of necessary public sector reform in order to ensure less duplication of services throughout the departments. The former Chief Executive was confident that the Corporate Management Board had "bought into" not just eGov, but also Public Sector Reform[11]. He assured the PAC that, following his departure in May 2018 (in fact he left in November 2017, and the new Chief Executive Mr Charlie Parker officially took on the post in early 2018) the team would continue to deliver and the principles would carry through. In the Executive response to the PAC's report, it had been emphasised that eGov infrastructure would continue to be delivered by eGov and ISD (information Services Department) teams.

14. The PAC wishes to reiterate it is supportive of the work being undertaken. However, it is concerned that in the absence of clear aims, objectives and direct application of public sector reform principles from the Chief Executive, through the Corporate Management Board, and without clear direction from the Director of Public Sector Reform, the eGov programme could be fragmented, delayed, or worse, derailed. It urges the (new) Chief Executive to lead departments  through  organisational  culture  change  and  establish  (written)  corporate, departmental and individual targets for the implementation of eGov.

8. Executive Response to Recommendation 3 – Leadership

1. In its previous report on eGov, the PAC had found that lines of accountability were neither well  enough  defined  nor  functioning  effectively  in  order  to  deliver  the  major  change programme of eGov. It concluded that the necessary leadership and vision from the former Chief Executive was lacking[12]. In practice, the eGov Programme Director had been assigned the tasks to deliver the entire programme, even though it was the former Chief Executive who had the authority to drive the necessary changes. The PAC therefore recommended that the performance appraisal system be utilised so that each Chief Officer had identifiable eGov objectives', targets and accountability. It was very pleased to note that the Executive Response to the recommendation agreed that departmental initiatives in relation to eGov would be discussed in one-to-one sessions and in Performance Review and Appraisals (PRAs).

Chief Officers

2. At the public hearing in November 2017, the PAC was keen to learn what progress had been made. The former Chief Executive stated that about 150 staff had been through digital transformation training as part of standard leadership development. He also advised that Chief Officers now have eGov objectives in their performance appraisals. Although the former Chief Executive explained to the PAC that he would not undertake those appraisals because he was no longer in post, he advised that ownership of eGov' had been transferred to the departments, and effectively the delivery of the programme now rests with individual Chief Officers for their areas.
3. Whilst the PAC is pleased to hear that the recommendation has been implemented, it remains frustrated that it has seen no documentary evidence to support the assertions made. To date, it has not seen any examples of objectives set in relation to eGov implementation. Therefore it cannot assess, for example, how those objectives reinforce corporate, rather than merely departmental, ways of working.
4. The former Chief Executive stated that close and effective cross-working (where one Chief Officer takes responsibility for a system which is key to other Chief Officers' working practices) was taking place. He cited an example of the Social Security Department Chief Officer, who will take responsibility for the oversight and administration of the people directory', which would then be used by all the other departments. He said that exemplified Chief Officers accepting responsibility and taking forward the delivery side of eGovernment.[13]
5. The former Chief Executive had agreed to review progress, however the PAC is aware that a new Chief Executive and transition team is now in place. Nevertheless, it would wish to see concrete examples of eGov-related objectives, evidence to demonstrate how corporate objectives are linked to strategic objectives, and evidence of how success in attaining those objectives is measured.

9. Executive Response to Recommendation 4 – People and Skills

1. The PAC previously expressed its disquiet that there had been too much emphasis on the technological aspects of eGov, to the detriment of human resources and competencies of staff to deliver an effective eGov programme.
2. In  its  review  of  Financial  Management,  the  PAC  emphasised  that  good  organisations effectively manage the performance of staff by setting appropriate objectives aligned to organisational priorities, evaluating performance against those objectives and identifying priorities for personal development to improve performance. [14]

Cultural inertia

3. During its review of eGov, the PAC had commented that staff within States departments are extremely hard-working and are often called upon to make daily decisions affecting customers. It was concerned that if the staff were not involved in the eGov strategy and therefore not motivated to implement it, there would be a "cultural inertia"[15], which at best would slow down the necessary reforms, and at worst derail them completely. It wanted to see values and principles embodied by each employee so that the strategic goals of the eGov programme could be delivered.
4. The PAC had therefore recommended that the Chief Executive ensure that the core vision, principles, values and skills were understood and embodied by staff. It also recommended that he encourage and support staff to work across departmental boundaries. In the Executive Response, the reply indicated that the Organisational Design Principles' had been established, approved by CMB, and implemented. However, the PAC considered this to be an unsatisfactory response as it had already pointed out, in its first report, that the Organisational Design Principles pamphlet were no substitutes for clear objectives and timeframes.[16] The PAC had had no difficulty in finding examples of good, clear and comprehensive strategies from other departments.[17]
5. The PAC was also informed, via the Executive Response, that digital leadership skills had been added to the Managers to Leaders' and Inspiring Managers' programmes. Again, it would be more reassured if it had seen some written examples of what those skills are, how they are put into practice, and how successful implementation is measured.
6. At its follow-up public hearing in November 2017, the PAC wanted to know how digital transformation had been communicated throughout departments and how buy-in' from staff was measured. The former Chief Executive explained that members of staff he had spoken to were impressed:

"It was very evident from all of those discussions I had with staff at many levels in the organisation, not just at senior level, that they wanted digital transformation, they wanted to move with us."[18]

7. However, the PAC did not accept this anecdotal evidence as a true indicator of success or otherwise. When asked about engagement within the workforce, the former Chief Executive and Business Change Director were satisfied that now a pilot website was in place, much more effective measuring would be available. However they did not elaborate on how such measurement would take place.

10. Executive Response to Recommendation 5 – Digital Jersey

1. The PAC, in its previous report of eGov, considered that as both the eGov team and Digital Jersey were established by the States and have a mutual interest in enabling a connected, digital society and enhanced quality of life in Jersey, they should share information and ideas more readily.
2. The PAC values Digital Jersey's focus on providing a recognisable face and touchstone for the Island's digital industries, where it acts as an interface between industry and government. Digital Jersey's stated aims of increased provision of online services by government, and the development of essential 'digital' infrastructure, are key to realising objectives also shared and promoted by the eGov programme. Therefore the PAC had strongly recommended that the Chief Executive encourage a closer working relationship in order to have a joined up approach between the commercial IT industries and government.
3. The Executive Response to the above recommendation commented that Digital Jersey was represented on the evaluation panel for the Digital ID service, and reiterated that regular meetings were held between the eGov team and representatives of the Digital Jersey organisation, although it did not expand what was meant by regular'. It accepted that Digital Jersey and the States would continue to progress joint actions set out in the Digital Policy Framework, however, in its response, the Chief Minister's Department (CMD) commented that:

It is imperative that Digital Jersey establish their position in line with their original objectives, for example, ensuring that the primary objectives translate into SMART targets as set out in the original Strategy and Business Plan, as opposed to being a trade representative body.

4. The response sought to draw a distinction between the Digital Jersey organisation, formed to further the digital industry of the Island, and the eGov team who were responsible for the delivery of eGov infrastructure for the States of Jersey. However, the CMD pledged to work with Digital Jersey to further the growth of the digital sector of the Jersey economy.
5. At its follow-up public hearing in November 2017, the PAC asked the former Chief Executive and Director of Business Change how often meetings were held between the teams and was pleased to hear they were held every two weeks. The Director of Business Change advised there were also additional meetings where required. He told the Committee that the most recent meeting had involved preparation for an event hosted by Digital Jersey on technology procurement.
6. The PAC was pleased to note that since its recommendation, there appeared to be improved communication between the eGov team and Digital Jersey. It noted this would be particularly useful in light of the challenges ahead, including sourcing the right people and skills during the transformation phase of the eGov programme. The PAC noted that it was not appropriate to recruit permanent staff due to the temporary nature of the transformation, therefore eGov had undertaken work with local suppliers, and obtained agreed rates for the provision of support staff.

11. Executive Response to Recommendation 6 – Projects and Programmes

1. Several Chief Officers gave evidence to the PAC Financial Management Review in 2016in respect of their involvement with eGov projects and programmes. [19] The Chief Officer of Corporate and Constitutional Affairs (CCA) advised that his department had a number of eGov projects and the Chief Officer of the Social Security Department (SSD) advised that his department was looking to work with eGov to see how it could collect income and streamline activities.
2. However, on hearing from most of the Chief Officers, the PAC became concerned that comments focussed on the technological or IT aspects of the programme rather than the move to centralising functions and streamlining customer services. As mentioned previously, the PAC had concluded that this illustrated a "cultural inertia", impeding the necessary changes.

Foreground Projects

3. During the course of the first eGov review  by the PAC, the Committee was keen to understand the ownership' process of projects throughout departments. At the first public hearing, the former Chief Executive advised that he did not have the cost of the foreground projects to hand, howeverthe Public Sector Reform Director advised that all foreground projects now went through the Portfolio Office process so that business cases, benefits and corporate decisions could be checked against corporate resources. [20]
4. Concluding its first eGov report, the PAC had been very concerned that, in the absence of a clear eGov strategy and objectives, the funding of individual foreground projects had been undertaken on an ad hoc basis. There did not appear to be clear criteria for approval of the projects, plus reporting of measurable outcomes had been haphazard and difficult to assess. The PAC had recommended that projects that form part of eGov should be scoped and designed to deliver clear, meaningful and measurable outcomes, backed by tangible project plans with relevant timescales and clear budgeting. It further recommended that when deadlines were missed, causes must be properly understood and duly reported on so that appropriate action could be taken to put a project, or a programme, back on the right track.

Executive Response

5. The Executive Response to this recommendation included reassurances that increased governance arrangements had been established around the Programme as a whole, a senior management accountant had been added to the team to monitor expenditure, and regular quarterly monitoring meetings were held with Treasury and Resources. It was further submitted that a Sub-Group of CMB had been set up to review any new projects to ensure that they meet the Organisational Design Principles. The eGov Director (now Business Change Director), who had been charged with implementing this recommendation, also advised that the eGov infrastructure programme has clear outcomes and clear budget lines associated with those outcomes. He submitted that eGov was a regular item on the CMB Portfolio Board for Reform, and regular meetings took place with the Corporate Change and Governance Office and programme managers across the reform portfolio to ensure progress was understood.

Progress to date

6. At its follow up public hearing in November 2017, the PAC heard from the eGov team on its progress to date. It was given a presentation centred on the illustration at Appendix 3, and encompassing the vision' for such projects as a single portal, interactive map, the Tell Us Once' concept and digital ID.

Single Portal

7. The eGov Team addressed the PAC with an update for the programme of a single portal (essentially a website), which would allow the user access to all States services online via a single point of entry and delivery, regardless of the service(s) being sought. The eGov team was keen to impress upon the Committee that many services would be available online and the public would no longer have to visit separate departments to undertake administrative tasks, as at present.
8. A pilot version of the single portal had been launched for a limited audience as a test version in November 2017. The PAC heard that it offered access to multiple different services and that significant work was being undertaken so that it would align with expected changes to European and ultimately Jersey, privacy and Data Protection legislation. The PAC was also advised that some eGov activity for the business community' had been initiated in the third quarter of 2017 and was on track to deliver at the end of the third quarter for 2018. The Business Change Director told the PAC that the team would be engaging with various representatives of the business community to ensure that the services selected and the way the deliverables' were built were in line with their requirements.

Interactive Map

9. The PAC was advised that the website hosts an interactive map that could be used by customers to look at different information according to where they were located in the Island. Over time, in line with customer feedback, additional information would be included to develop the interactive map.

People Directory

10. The PAC recalled that after its Financial Management hearings in 2016, it had followed up with a query to the former Chief Executive on the challenges in respect of the establishment of a People Directory (for the Island's population)[21]. The PAC was told by the then Chief Executive that it would establish a single record holding certain demographic information for all customers who interact with the States of Jersey:

"Over time this will replace the myriad of different people databases held across the States of Jersey. This will result in better quality of customer service and a more efficient government and continues the work to create a tell us once' environment."

11. The former Chief Executive had assured the PAC that the work to design and build this system was well underway and supported by a local company sourced through open procurement. He advised that testing would take place in Q2 2017 with implementation starting in Q3 2017. This work included integration with Social Security systems and new eGov components. Challenges included the integration of this directory with other existing systems which required resourcing. Establishing the legal basis for sharing this information across departments was compounded by the need for compliance with new General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

12. At its eGov follow up public hearing in November 2017, the PAC was keen to learn of meaningful progress. The Director of Business Change advised that the system was now built and will be used once we have the first live service users, which we anticipate in quarter 1 of 2018.'

"Tell Us Once"

13. The PAC was reminded that "Tell Us Once" is a concept whereby various different public services share the information provided by a customer. For example, a name change resulting from marriage would be told to one department and that information could be available to other departments through automated systems. The system relies on a unique digital ID for each user, and the PAC was told that the security measures were underway but not yet complete.
14. The PAC was advised by the Business Change Director that the next step would be to secure the appropriate funding to implement the digital I.D. which, he assured the Committee, would commence in the first quarter of 2018. In addition, he told the members that there was a provision, made by the Treasurer, for a contingency, and there would be a small call on that provision in December 2017 to spend in 2018 and 2019'. He told the PAC that, thereafter, an integrated system would need to be put in place and a product for that purpose was currently being selected by the eGov team. Once that had been procured, the integration of different computer systems could be undertaken.[22]

Overlap of Functions

15. The PAC had previously found that too much time was taken up by departments (especially the Treasury) in transactional processes and manual inputting of data. It considered that highly skilled personnel could be put to better use throughout departments, if some of those processes could be undertaken by lower skilled staff and better integrated systems. The PAC was aware that in many cases, departments reinvent processes and duplicate commercial agreements (such as with merchant account providers) that have already been established elsewhere. This creates additional work and contributes to transactional work being undertaken within each departments, with the additional risk that consistent documented processes are not used.
16. The PAC was aware that there might be a case for short-term investment in order to produce long-term savings, and it had investigated what framework was in place to encourage cross departmental programmes which would hopefully reduce overlap of functions. The Business Change Director, at the public hearing in November 2017 assured the PAC that:

"The ultimate goal remains an integrated product that calls directly on a single version of the truth for example in Health and Social Security, a single database that will be automated and there will be no double handling of data in there. That starts to minimise the risk of errors and drives out inefficiency. What is important, however, is that if it takes time to bring together the complexity of different systems (but) if you can deliver a customer benefit on the way to the ultimate goal of customer and internal efficiency, you should do so." [23]

17. Again, whilst pleased with the progress of individual projects, the PAC was frustrated that it could not measure progress against written timelines, strategies or business plans. Although it had been sent a large amount of data and diagrams, there was not sufficient clarity and focus that the PAC sought at this stage of the eGov programme.  

12. Executive Response to Recommendation 7 – Budgeting

1. The PAC recalled that when the States published a business case for eGov, in 2014, the estimated cost of implementation was £11.5m over six years, with recurrent costs totalling £2.9m over the same period.[24]

Securing Funds

2. The Executive had previously advised (in response to a recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General's review of eGov) that by quarter 3 of 2016, each major eGov capital and revenue consequence would be included in the full business case at inception. The PAC had welcomed this move and during its own review, had received a table showing eGov capital breakdown from inception to 28/02/2017':

3. In March 2017, the former Chief Executive produced figures for the main eGov programme[25], which he confirmed as having a budget of £9.9 million (approved by the Council of Ministers in 2 tranches, of £2.26 million and £7.65 million). The spend to the end of February 2017 had been £7.9 million, the larger elements of that being attributed to the exemplar projects' at £1.8 million. The eGov team providing project management support accounted for £1.3 million. The Design Authority, (responsible for establishing rules, blueprints and design of the programme) cost £1.4 million, and some of the early foundation projects totalled circa £1million.

Capital Variance

4. In follow up questions to the eGov team, the PAC queried the large variance in three areas of the capital breakdown document (above) and the reliance on future revenue bids to complete the eGov programme. It asked what corrective steps were being taken to reduce the risk of overspends in the future.[26] The eGov Team responded by explaining the three areas thus:

1. Unbudgeted team costs – the bulk of these are non-recurring. The recurring element relates to procurement resource which we are in the process of restructuring. This restructure will reduce costs.

2. Additional deliverables (tax and parishes) – these items are all non-recurring. The early funding of a tax office modernisation team' has enabled the transformation of the taxes office to start, and therefore deliver benefits, earlier. The co-funding of eGovernment activity with the parishes recognises the importance of aligning service delivery from the wider public administration for the benefit of our mutual customers.
3. Incremental costs of contract resources – Due to the scale and complexity of the programme of change we have not been able to recruit the complete programme team from existing staff. The programme has already managed down the cost of contractors. Subject to a successful revenue bid to the Council of Ministers we will be able to offer longer term contracts through normal recruitment which will further bring down these resource costs.

5. As stated in the previous chapter, the PAC has been concerned that, at this stage of eGov implementation, there is an urgent need for greater clarity, focus and accountability. It had recommended to the former Chief Executive, that the eGov budget be updated regularly and monitored forensically. The Committee wanted the Treasurer and former Chief Executive to be able to be confident in the knowledge of how, when, and why money had been spent so that they could gauge what further funds would be needed.

Digital ID

6. The Digital ID project had struck the PAC as an example of extreme variance with original budget estimates. At its previous public hearing, the Committee had wanted to know how much time and money was spent on the initial investigation and why the decision had been taken not to implement it.[27] The eGov team had advised that the original business case (2014), based on a consultancy report, indicated a budget of £390k would be sufficient for delivery of a digital ID. However, it seems that this significantly underestimated the costs and the former Chief Executive admitted that the decision not to proceed with the UK Verify option was made in Q4 2016, based on the findings of a report commissioned from a leading identity consultancy, which led them to accept that implementing the UK model was financially unviable.
7. In April 2017, the former Chief Executive advised that £240,000 had already been spent on Digital ID[28], and stated the process should be split into two parts an initial physical verification by the customer, and a digital key for subsequent access to data. [29], When asked what the strengths and risks of the new approach were, and the timetable and budget for its implementation, he advised that it was a complex process, evolving in a fast growth market.
8. The second part of the process, the "digital key" that enables an ID-verified individual to access their data held on Government systems, had reached procurement stage in March 2017. The PAC had been assured that a timetable was being drawn up. Regarding the budget, the Chief Executive had advised, as at March 2017, that it was unknown, although he stated:

" however, an independent report commissioned in Q3 2016 gave implementation and five year costs of (then) current digital ID solutions ranging between £2m and £7m."

9. The PAC had expressed its concern that the Chief Executive (and therefore the CMB) and Treasurer should receive sufficient, appropriate, accurate and timely information on the planned and actual use of funds. The PAC was assured by the Chief Executive that (in the case of Digital ID) much of the learning from this initial discovery work remained of value to the programme and will influence the procurement and selection of the strategic choice for digital ID.'[30]

Senior Management Accountant

10. The Executive Response to this final recommendation of the PAC's first eGov review, included the assurance that a senior management accountant (SMA) had been seconded to the Corporate Change and Governance Office as part of the team. The PAC was told that the SMA would provide monthly financial reviews and monitoring on all areas that had received Restructuring Provision (RP) funds in order to verify that the budget is spent in accordance with the approved business case, and any  underspends transferred back in to the Restructuring Provision Fund.
11. At its follow-up public hearing in November, the PAC was assuredthat each individual activity delivered by eGov was set against clear budgets and timetables.[31] Each had a separate budget line and was managed separately. Many of these were now closed but the information pertaining to objectives, budget, timescales and eventual spend was listed.
12. The PAC requested documentation to back up this assertion and was told by the former Chief Executive:

" there is a lot of information available so we are very happy for your officer or someone to come in and have a look and go through it with us."[32]

13. The PAC did not consider this to be an appropriate response, bearing in mind that it had asked for clear and easily accessible information and had been assured that monthly financial reviews were to be provided to the SMA. It could not understand why such information could not be routinely and immediately accessed, to be scrutinised in a rather more formal manner.

Budget spreadsheet

14. As previously stated in Chapter 7 of this report, the PAC subsequently received an A3 spreadsheet, entitled "Supplied in Confidence – eGov deliverables as at 30/11/17", via email on 22nd January 2018. The PAC noted that the list seemed to be a record of expenditure against budget, and although it respects the request not to publish, it has decided, in the interests of openness and transparency, to comment on the contents in general terms.
15. The Committee noted that the budgets for projects, as listed on the A3 sheet, ranged from £7,500 to £2,303,000 and that the total budget for all the eGov projects was £10,876,00 (plus an additional budget of £962,500 for 2018), with expenditure of £9,697,943.[33] The sums were not accompanied with any written criteria for awarding the budgets, nor indications of the controls in place for ensuring that the principles of value for money were followed. The PAC was also concerned to note that:

• all of the (closed status) individual project expenditure meets the budgeted amount exactly. In other words, the forecast, allotted budget and final expenditure, of Tell Us Once', Design Authority, People Directory, online GST payments, and at least 14 other individual projects, match the expected amount of spend to the actual amount spent, with a variance of 0%. This unlikely scenario is probably explained by restrospective application of forecasting'.
• some projects appear to have a full budget allocation but are additionally listed within another budget as exemplar projects'.

13. Conclusion

1. In preparing this follow-up review, the PAC has been ever-mindful of its remit, to consider whether public funds have been applied for the purpose intended by the States and whether sound financial practices have been applied throughout the administrations of all States departments.
2. The PAC has not seen a scoping document for any eGov programme, specifying the overall strategy, how the project fits into that strategy and how it would be measured or demonstrate success or failure within a set timeframe. We have been sent vast amounts of diagrams and spreadsheets, but we are yet to see anything that convinces us the individual projects, or indeed, the overall strategy, are working to Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely (SMART) objectives. And so, we cannot measure progress, or see tangible outputs, or know that if something has gone wrong, that lessons have been learned so that the next project attempt will be successful.
3. To date, the PAC has not seen any examples of objectives set in relation to eGov implementation, for Chief Officers or others. Therefore it cannot assess, for example, how those objectives reinforce corporate, rather than merely departmental, ways of working. It has been frustrating and difficult for the PAC to measure meaningful progress.
4. It is reassured to note that that there are several hard-working people on the eGov team and in each department, trying to roll out a technically challenging and multi-stranded programme.
5. It wishes to emphasise that it embraces digital technology's potential to transform States departments. The eGov programme can and should underpin a better way of working for staff, and create a better service for the public. The PAC is supportive of its implementation and wishes to see the necessary investment in a radically new and modernised way of working, supported by up-to-date IT systems. However, the tax-paying public must be assured that their money is being spent wisely. The eGov programme must be efficient and effective and provide good value for money, even if that means spending money up front to invest in streamlining services and updating technological support.
6. The PAC wants to see an eGov programme that is flexible and responsive to the needs of its customers. It wants to see evidence that there is the necessary buy-in' not just from Chief Officers, but all the way through the departments. It wants to see cross-working between departments, essential to break down the silo' mentality of individual departments that we hear so much about. The PAC has not been provided with clear evidence of effective communication with, or buy-in' from, staff tasked with implementing eGov.[34]
7. The eGov programme has a sizeable budget (a significant proportion of which has been spent) and it will need more in order to see it through to completion. In order to get those resources – not just money, but the right people and skills – and the proper buy-in' to the whole scheme, there has to be greater clarity, focus and proper accountability. The PAC strongly urges the eGov team and the Chief Executive to ensure that each and every eGov project is scoped to provide clear, meaningful and measurable outcomes, backed by tangible project plans with realistic timescales and clear budgeting.
8. The PAC is concerned enough about budgeting procedures to send a message to the Chief Executive and Treasurer, asking that they investigate what appears to be retrospective forecasting' in its budget procedures. It will be asking the new PAC, post-elections, to follow up this matter.

APPENDIX 1: Executive Response to C&AG Recommendations

Appendix 2: Executive Response to PAC (1st) Report

Appendix 3: eGov vision' illustration

[1] C&AG Report on eGovernment, 19 May 2016 - www.jerseyauditoffice.je

[2]PAC Public Hearing with Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[3] Document circulated at the public hearing to PAC members, with Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[4] PAC Report on eGov Presented to the States 28th June 2017

[5] Email from Jonathan Williams to Mike Robinson and PAC Officer, dated 26th October, 2016

[6] Business Change Director, p10 of transcript of Public Hearing with PAC, 27th November 2017.

[7]

[8] Email to PAC Dated 10:25am Wed 7th February 2018.

[9] Public Hearing with PAC, 27th November 2017

[10] Public Hearing (PAC Review of Financial Management) with the Treasurer of the States and the (former) Chief Executive, 1st March 2016, p10

[11] PAC Public Hearing with (former) Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[12] Post hearing question sent by email 10th April 2017, response received 24th April 2017.

[13] Hearing with Director, eGov. 27th November 2017. Page 10.

[14] PAC Report on Financial Management, presented to the States on 10th August 2016 – PAC 1/2016

[15] PAC Report on Financial Management, presented to the States on 10th August 2016 – PAC 1/2016

[16] PAC Report on eGov Presented to the States 28th June 2017 – p.12

[17] Link: digital-health-and-care-strategy

[18] Hearing with Former Chief Executive Officer 27th November 2017 Page 13.

[19] PAC Public Hearing on Financial Management, with Chief Officer, CCA and others, 28th February 2016

[20] PAC Public Hearing with Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[21] Post hearing question sent by email 10th April 2017, response received 24th April 2017.

[22] Hearing with Director, eGov (Business Change Director) . 27th November 2017. Page 7.

[23] Hearing with Director, eGov. (now Business Change Director) 27th November 2017

[24] Amended via email from Jonathan Williams to PAC Officer, 21st June 2017.

[25] PAC Public Hearing with Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[26] Post-public hearing questions sent by email 10th April 2017, answers received by email 24th April 2017

[27] Post-public hearing questions sent by email 10th April 2017, answers received by email 24th April 2017

[28] PAC Public Hearing with Chief Executive and others, 27th March 2017

[29] Post hearing question sent by email 10th April 2017, response received 24th April 2017.

[30] The Executive confirmed the additional funds required for delivery of the digital ID were approved by Council of Ministers in November 2017. A preferred supplier was approved at the end of December 2017 and contracts were due to be signed with the supplier in Q1 2018 – information received from Business Change Director via email on 13th March 2018.

[31] Hearing with Former Chief Executive Officer 27th November 2017

[32] Hearing with Former Chief Executive Officer 27th November 2017 Page 20.

[33] Information delivered to the PAC 22/01/2018 11:48hrs.

[34] The Business Change Director confirmed via email of 13th March 2018, in response to a draft of this report, that:' Evidence of buy-in across the States is clear from decisions to use eGov programme deliverables across many service transformation programmes including those in tax and health. Delivery is also accelerating with many components of eGov becoming live in the first half of 2018.'