SHARED BUSINESS RATES IN THE EAST END:

OUR JOURNEY

Jeff Potter Bola OdunsiHead of Exchequer Services Head of B&D Direct

London Borough of Havering London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

OVERVIEW

• Background• Historical Context• Status and Drivers• Process• Project Management• Governance• Issues• What We Learnt• What is essential to make this work

CityK & C

Merton

HaveringBarking

Redbridge

Newham

Bexley

Greenwich

Lewisham

Bromley

Southw

ark

CroydonSutton

Kingston

Upon Thames

RichmondUpon Thames

Hounslow

EalingHillingdon

Harrow

Brent

Barnet

Enfield

Haringey

Walth

am

Fo

rest

Hackney

Islington

Camden

Lam

beth

H &

F

Wandsworth

&DagenhamW

estminster

TowerHamlets

’

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

Element LBBD LBH

Hereditaments 4,149 5,557

Debit 55,868,560.33 76,799,551.99

Political Control Labour Con.

Deprivation Top 20 220!

Staff, before Shared Service (FTE) 7.5 6

NNDR Collection Performance 07/08 99.2 98.6

NNDR Collection Performance 06/07 99.7 99.2

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

• NELP: A Framework for low level co-operation• London Centre Excellence: Agreed to fund scoping study• Oct 06: LBH Invite tenders for Feasibility study• 4 Tenders: KPMG, PWC, IRRV Solutions, LG Solutions• Dec 06: Contract to IRRV Solutions• Jan 07: Feasibility study begins• Feb 07:Joint Business Rates Implementation begins• July 07: Feasibility Study ends

Element LBBD LBH

Service Resilience

Improved Performance

Savings

Making it work & learning the modelling lessons

Value for Money

Key staff changes allow opportunity to change

How to share risk, and returns

DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

PROCESS

• Its not just as simple as signing it off yourself!• Authorisation and Approval: Internal

– Legal– Finance– Programme Office (IT Strategy & Programme Board)

• Authorisation and approval:– Each Council’s formal Committee process– Managing the comms, the process and the members

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

• Using a good process: The LBH Team and toolkit• LBH Project manager deployed• Specialist external support• Project toolkit - Project Board, PID, Risk Register and

management, Project Plan, Project exception and regular reporting

• Project Timeline

PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE

• Shadow BoardDrafting the documents• Producing, and signing:

– Formal contract– Service Level Agreement, for Rates (LBBD to LBH) and

ICT(LBH to LBBD) • Migrating from Project to Operational management

– Project Board, Oct 06-March 07– Governance Board, April 07 to date

• Board membership: 4 Service heads (or deputies) 2 each• Board voting, meeting etc: Detailed in Partnership Documents

ISSUES: FINANCIAL

• Implementation costs:– Managed through Board– Initially came in under budget

• Business Case for change– Fully costed five year model– Includes cost sharing of each party, and basis for variation

• VAT issue – Systems hosting eligible for VAT, but..

– Collection function not eligible for VAT.

HR ISSUES

• TUPE: Not relevant to this implementation because no staff transferred

• Staff employed by lead authority, under that Council’s T and C’s

• Appropriate clauses in contract• Joint approach to recruitment• Staff before: 13.5 After: 10

OPERATIONAL ISSUES• Connectivity• Scanning and Indexing• Telephones• BIDs• Income and Court costs• Recovery arrangements• Bailiffs• Reconciliations

POST GO LIVE ARRANGEMENTS• Governance Board• Change control• Performance• Staffing• Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity• Operational Board• Day to day performance• Operational liaison• Building relationships

LESSONS LEARNT• Don’t underestimate cultural differences• Manage relationships• Managing the transfer from Project to Operational• Engage with key departments early: Usually finance,

legal, ICT, HR• Don’t underestimate timescales for approval process• Carried out Lessons learnt exercise –post go LIVE &

will also do 1 year follow-up session

WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO MAKE THIS WORK?• Common vision, values and will• Culture of Shared Service: Merger vs. Takeover?

– Take-over means the one partner has more influence– Merger means more equality in negotiations

• Effective project management• Effective governance• Effective communication• Identify your own internal blockers!• But it can be made to work.

SIGNS OF A HEALTHY STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (1)

Signs Of A Healthy Strategic Partnership Never Sometimes Always

Partners can demonstrate real results through collaboration.

Common interest supersedes partner interest, there are clear shared objectives and a realistic plan for reaching the objectives.

Partners use “we” when talking about Partner matters.

Partners are mutually accountable for tasks and outcomes and there is a clear framework of responsibilities.

Partners share responsibilities and rewards.

SIGNS OF A HEALTHY STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (2)

Never Sometimes Always

Partners strive to develop and maintain trust.

Partners are willing to change what they do and how they do it.

Partners seek to improve how the partnership performs and there are realistic ways of measuring the partnership achievements.

Commitment from partners to take the partnership work into account within mainstream activities.

Partners exhibit an ability to manage differences

Partners exhibit an ability to problem solve with each other

MAKING PARTNERSHIPS WORK

Leadership

Where partners share a vision and harness their energies to achieve more than they could on their own.

Trust

Where partners are mutually accountable, share risks and rewards fairly, and support each other.

Learning

Where partners continuously seek to improve what they do in partnership.

Managing for performance

Where partners put in place necessary practices and resources, and manage change effectively.

THANK YOU

ANY QUESTIONS?