Agenda item

Naveed Mohammed, Head of Business Performance and Insight, introduced the report which provided an overview of how the tracking of performance and provision of insight data were arranged in the Council and how data was used to shape operational delivery and the strategic development of services.

Members heard that the Council routinely gathered a wide spectrum of data across all directorates for a number of purposes – to ensure services were being delivered efficiently to meet the needs of residents, to plan for the future development of services and to satisfy statutory returns. It was confirmed that the Council provided over 700 services to local residents. To ensure that directorate and service colleagues had the support needed, the Council had brought together the performance resource into a central team comprising 12 FTE. This approach was beneficial as it facilitated a better use of resources with members of the corporate team having expertise across multiple areas of the Council’s business. It also ensured improved transparency and provided an opportunity to challenge services if necessary.

The Select Committee heard that the process for developing the data was straightforward. Services were responsible for inputting data into case management systems while Business Performance were responsible for extracting the data and developing the reports necessary for the services to carry out their business. The level of support individual directorates received was dependent on 3 factors – risk, status and volume of activity. Children’s Care, Housing and Adult Social Care were high risk departments which required weekly reports therefore had a dedicated resource. In respect of other departments, analysts were each given responsibility for 2+ areas. This arrangement ensured sufficient coverage of analytical support whilst giving analysts an opportunity to develop understanding and expertise across multiple functions.

Members were informed that operational outputs varied depending on the needs of the service areas. For statutory, high risk services there was a requirement for regular weekly / monthly data. Examples included weekly analysis of Locata applications for housing and the monthly team’s dashboard for Adults. Data that was more strategic or where there was benchmarking was produced quarterly (ChAT, LIIA). In addition to reporting at service level, Members heard that there was corporate reporting to CMT in the form of a balanced scorecard. Key metrics at service level were selected and reported to CMT on a quarterly basis. This report tracked performance and included targets and a ‘traffic-light system’ with indicators off target flagged as Red.

It was confirmed that, in addition to performance data, the Business Performance Team was responsible for the analysis of data to establish patterns and trends. Such information was crucial when planning for strategic changes or service redesign. Finally, the service supported individual projects with ad hoc analyses; examples included a study of the educational performance of white boys and work on Covid-19 to help the Council better target local interventions to support residents.

In terms of data sources and tools, Select Committee Members were advised that the main tools used by the Business Performance Team were SAP Business Objects (BOXI) and Microsoft Excel. BOXI was used to interrogate the data captured by the service areas while Excel enabled officers to analyse and present the data in a clear format for end users. Other bespoke systems were also used across specific areas; notably Experian which had recently been used for work around the contact centre and to ‘profile’ school cohorts.

In response to their requests for clarification, Members heard that individual service areas were responsible for the input and management of their own data but decisions regarding the organisation of said data / report designs were made collaboratively by the Business Performance Team and IT. In terms of CMT reporting, it was confirmed that CMT worked closely with Naveed to set out their requirements and were in receipt of quarterly reports in the form of a balanced scorecard. 

Members enquired how the accuracy of the data input by the service areas was monitored. It was confirmed that the Business Performance Team relied on the departments to input their own data accurately; it was in everyone’s best interest to ensure the data was recorded accurately as data reports were regularly circulated to Heads of Service and Directors for checking.

In response to further enquiries from the Committee, it was confirmed that LBH was good at using the data at its disposal to ‘paint a picture’ / ‘tell the story’ but conveying information to the service areas was an area for improvement.

James Wigley, Managing Director – Key Intelligence UK, addressed the Committee confirming that he had been working in the field of local authority data for 15 years specialising in Housing and Social Care data. Key Intelligence UK had worked with approximately 50 different local authorities to date and were currently working with 10. Members were advised that Key Intelligence UK were usually called in as an additional resource to provide technical assistance when performance teams had found that the toolkit they were using to take data from their client management systems (CMS) to present as a story was limiting them in some way. Members heard that the providers of CMS often also supplied a data warehouse to translate the heavily technical data into a slightly more digestible format. The tool Business Objects was then used by performance teams to interrogate the database and produce data set reports which could be refreshed on a regular basis. Finally, the data would be presented using Excel charts, narrative reports, tables etc. Members were informed that there was a limitation in the way warehouses had been designed which meant they were good at extracting the data but not so adept at finessing it. Key Intelligence UK were often called in to provide technical help using database skills to find a solution to this issue. They could also assist with data migration and provide additional technical support in times of statutory returns / preparation for Ofsted. In the case of Hillingdon, there had been a short-term capacity issue around reporting due to the implementation of the Stronger Families Programme. Key Intelligence had been called in to assist with the urgent development of new reports and to provide an overview of social care reporting to get a broader picture of medium to long term reporting requirements and shorter term specific specifications for the next set of data requirements. The piece of work had now been completed.

Mr Wigley informed Members that, compared to other London boroughs, Hillingdon had a similar sized performance team with a strong knowledge of databases and business processes. However, it was confirmed that quite a few other boroughs had a technical edge either provided externally or skilled up within the team. This meant they had access to more technical support, either provided externally or through inhouse inbuilt SQL development skills to speed up the process of getting the data. This enabled performance teams to focus more on presentation, distribution of the data and analysis. It was confirmed that this additional level of support could be achieved in a number of ways; either at service area level with additional data officers working on data quality or by means of higher level technical skill within the performance team to focus on SQL type work.

Perry Scott, Corporate Director – Infrastructure, Transport & Building Services, informed the Committee that a lot of work had been undertaken in recent years to refresh IT, provide staff with new kit and move from Google to Microsoft. The focus now was on looking at where the data sat within the core systems and what was needed to extract the data and get it to people in a timely manner. A technical solution was being explored to drive this forward.

In response to requests for clarification from Committee Members, it was confirmed that certain data sets, particularly in social care, were quite small therefore it was difficult to draw meaningful statistical conclusions. Data sharing partnerships existed in London to mass up the data sets to get a broader insight from a wider population. More work on data preparation so it was in a standardised format made it more consistent and easier to analyse. It was further confirmed that, given a stronger data warehouse and SQLs, Hillingdon had the skillset to tell the story effectively. The Business Performance Team members had a thorough and nuanced understanding of the service areas and of the Borough itself therefore were well placed to spot anomalies in the data. Members heard that IT provided SQL support to the Business Performance Team. It would be possible to upskill the existing staff members and they would welcome the opportunity.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the Team did not routinely provide data for all 700 services but would provide ad hoc support when requested to do so. Recent examples included work to support the transformation of libraries and to assist waste services with its new recycling programme. It would not be feasible to provide CMT with regular reports on all 700 services at the same time. Members heard that the Business Performance Team conducted an overview of their reporting every year or two to ensure the reports produced were still relevant and useful. However, some reports were automated and would therefore be sent out regularly regardless of usage.

It was felt that the Council was now in a good position to make a step change; once officers had access to the required tools and the data had been lined up correctly, the Business Performance Team would be in a position to perform more analysis of the data and tell the detailed story with less requirement to focus on data production and checking. In terms of data culture across the Council, Members were advised that there were some areas of very good practice while other areas still had a way to go.

Members requested further clarification regarding benchmarking and heard that services were often benchmarked against statistical neighbours; however, the clients decided who they wanted to benchmark against – sometimes the West London context was most appropriate. In terms of Covid, LBH was benchmarked against near neighbours including London boroughs, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.  Benchmarking varied according to who was asking for the data and what they requested as the benchmark. The Business Performance Team had a good working relationship with the services and weekly meetings were held with service heads at which benchmarking could be discussed.

Members enquired whether back data was used for forecasting future expectations of demand. It was confirmed that this was an area for development. Straight line forecasting could be achieved based on previous trends. One area of effective forecasting was in school places planning which was supported by the GLA. Over the years, accuracy had usually been within 2.5% - 5% accuracy.

In response to further questioning from the Committee, Members heard that the CMT balanced scorecard, in one guise or another, had been in place for at least 5 years. It was presented to CMT by the Head of Business Performance and Insight as a collective piece and included information across all areas. The format of the CMT report had changed over the years and was now more dynamic. The Corporate Director – Infrastructure, Transport and Building Services confirmed that the current quarterly reporting frequency to CMT appeared to be working well. Each balanced scorecard was reviewed regularly and updated by individual service areas. It was noted that KPIs were additionally produced on a weekly and monthly cycle and seen by service managers and heads. Information could be requested on an ad hoc basis to support the needs of services. At the request of the Chairman it was agreed that the Head of Business Performance and Insight would liaise with Democratic Services to provide further detail and clarify this process further outside the meeting. 

Members heard that CMT reports were usually available within 3 weeks of quarter end i.e. meetings with CMT were weekly and the Business Performance Team would attempt to gather all the information for the 3^rd CMT meeting after quarter end.

The Committee was informed that options in terms of data tools to extract the data were currently being explored – the Council wanted to invest in the right product and ensure the data extracted was of value. One option was Power BI which was a Microsoft product – this was a good product but expensive. In response to further questions from Members, it was confirmed that cross departmental analysis was carried out; one example was the provision of information extracted from Children’s Social Care to support the Green Spaces team with the FIESTA programme.

It was agreed that Mike Talbot would be requested to attend the next witness session in October. James Wigley would not be required to attend again. A representative selection of witnesses across Council services would also be requested to attend the next witness session (from Adults’ and Children’s Social Care, ASBET, Housing and Waste Services).

RESOLVED:

1)    Naveed Mohammad liaise with Democratic Services to clarify current processes in relation to the CMT balanced scorecard and reporting;

2)    That Mike Talbot and a representative selection of witnesses across key Council services be requested to attend the next witness session in October; and

3)    That the information provided in relation to the Performance Monitoring and Reporting review be noted.