WRITTEN RECORD OF A DECISION IN RESPECT OF AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RELEVANT DECISION-MAKER AND PROPER OFFICER

 

 

 

DECISION-MAKER:

Cabinet

DATE OF DECISION-MAKING:

14th July 2003

PORTFOLIO AREA:

Corporate Services

DECISION REFERENCE:

CAB0029-2003JUL14

SUBJECT TITLE:

Desktop Rationalisation/Refresh Strategy

 

This record relates to the report appearing as item 11 on the agenda for the Decision-Making.

 

A copy of the report is available from:

John Bennington

Tel: 023 8083 3070

Email: john.bennington@southampton.gov.uk

 

 

 

THE DECISION

 

Having read the report, including its recommendations and proposals, and following consideration of all other relevant matters, the decision-maker made the following decision.

 

1.

 4

To approve the proposals / recommendations contained in the report

 

 

without modification as set out below. 

 

 

 

1.    To approve under financial procedure rules expenditure of  £76000 which will be met from the provision of £1,070,000 for e-government foundation contained in the uncommitted section of the corporate services portfolio capital programme.

 

2.    The Cabinet is asked to approve the expenditure for the activities to complete a study to determine the optimum manner for replacing desktop technology, maintaining it at a suitable level of currency and gaining cost and efficiency savings by use of remote desktop management and support tools. The project would be funded from the funds already identified within the capital programme for e-Government Foundations.

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 

 

 
  1. The Corporate ICT Strategy identifies a major risk to the Council in its historic lack of investment in Desktop and Office Systems Technology and the need to undertake a feasibility study to determine a Desktop Rationalisation Strategy to address the current situation and avoid further risks in the future. 
  2. The current desktop environment is a mix of several different operating systems. Supporting such a wide variety of operating systems and MS-Office software inevitably drives up base support costs. 
  3. There is a pressing need in particular to replace around 50% of the authority’s desktops which are still using Windows 95 – an eight year old product which has been superseded by several later versions and is now unsupported by Microsoft.
  4. Lack of Microsoft support for Windows 95 means that suppliers are unable to guarantee continued availability and functionality of their applications on Windows95.  This leaves the authority open to risk of one or more major systems being unavailable if Operating System related problems occur with the worst case scenario being that Windows95 desktops cease to operate effectively for all systems. If any of these did occur the only option would be to upgrade to a currently supported operating system, which would incur unplanned & unknown costs for hardware and software and an extensive migration project during which services would be unavailable.
  5. It should especially be noted that support by Agresso for the Finance System is expected to expire in second quarter 2005 (this is understood to be a special arrangement for SCC). Therefore it is vital that ALL Windows 95 PCs are refreshed within a two-year time frame. To be able to achieve this, we will have to move speedily.
  6. A currently supported level of Operating System is a pre-requisite for delivery of new applications and desktop functionality.  This is becoming increasingly important to meet the demands of e-Government.
  7. Costs and efficiency savings will be achieved from standardisation in reduced training, integration and support costs and in implementing remote management and support tools.  Remote management tools enable central software distribution and upgrade and the ability to take control of a desktop from a central location to undertake diagnostics and problem resolution. Both of these will minimise the number of visits required to desktops saving technician travelling time to enable faster response to users faults.  While savings in technician travel time will to some degree be offset by the management and maintenance of the remote management tools there will be some savings and end user productivity will benefit from faster response and resolution of faults as well as speedier application of changes, which should be able to be delivered far more efficiently.

 

 

DETAILS OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

 

 

 
  1. The alternative of not producing a strategy was considered and rejected.  If no action is taken to address the current situation the risks and costs associated with the current unsatisfactory situation will escalate to an unacceptable level and we will be constrained in our ability to improve service quality and drive down costs. Standardisation and effective management tools form the critical foundations on which we can build to meet these objectives.  
  2. The key risks are:

·       service unavailability from failed unsupported products

·       being unable to provide sufficiently accurate information on software licensing for external audit if required which could leave us open to prosecution

·       inability to meet e-government targets due to desktops not meeting specification for deploying required software or functionality

  1. This project is specifically aimed at arriving at a set of standard solutions for different profiles of users, which can be delivered with an optimum balance of cost and performance together with a financial plan that will allow these to be regularly refreshed and maintained at a more current level.

 

OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS CONCERNING THE DECISION

 

 

 

The following relevant matters not contained in the report were considered when making the decision:

 

NONE

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DECLARED AND DISPENSATIONS GRANTED

 

 

 

 

 4

* The decision-maker(s) did not declare a personal or prejudicial interest in the

 

 

matters set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURE OF DECISION MAKER OR PERSON PRESIDING AND PROPER OFFICER

 

 

 

We certify that the decision this document records was made in accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 and is a true and accurate record of that decision.

 

 

Decision Maker or Person Presiding

Councillor Vinson

 

Dated:

14th July, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proper Officer

Peter Cook

 

Dated:

14th July, 2003      

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Proper Officer” means the Solicitor to the Council or their nominated representative.  This function will usually be discharged by the Democratic Support Officer appointed to support the decision-making.

 

 

FOR USE BY DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT AND MEMBERS’ SERVICES

Call In Period

Wednesday 16th July to Tuesday 22nd July 2003     

Date of Call-in (if applicable) (this suspends implementation)

     

Call-in Procedure completed (the decision may now be implemented)

     

Results of Call-in / any other comments / observations: