Full Business Case:
Collaboration Software
Document Information
This Business Case provides justification for the business change in terms of its strategic fit, value for money, affordability and achievability. It also provides the basis for managing the delivery of the project on time, within budget and to agreed quality standards.
Date: 15th February 2011 Status: Final
Current Version: 1.1
Transparency level: Public
Author: Anita Ghosh
Owner: IM&T Steering Group
Commissioned by: Director of Finance – Mike Naylor
File location: R:\IM&T Programme\IM&T Projects\Current\Sharepoint (P70)\Business Case
Distribution & approvals history
Version Distributed to Date Action taken / Approved by
0.3 Project Board 27/1/11 Comments forwarded at project board meeting held on 31/1/11.
0.4 Project Board 4/1/11 Internal review only
0.5 Finance 3/2/11 Affordability and Economic cases
reviewed and revised 0.6 IM&T Steering Group 10/2/11 Approved
1.0 Executive Management Committee 15/2/11 Reviewed
Action required for this version: • Review and approval
1. Background
1.1. The IM&T Steering Group previously approved the strategic case for MS
SharePoint, which outlined the current situation with respect to communicating and sharing information in the Trust, and some of the common problems experienced by staff, and proposed the adoption of a tool to address some of these issues, namely MS SharePoint.
1.2. The IM&T Steering Group subsequently approved the business case for MS SharePoint and Office Communications Server on the premise that client licences for the MS SharePoint product would be funded centrally by Connecting for Health. As such, the outline business case was not submitted to the Trust Board as the original costs were below the threshold for Trust Board approval.
1.3. This central funding, covered by an Enterprise Wide Agreement (EWA) for the NHS has since been withdrawn.
1.4. This full business case reviews the position with respect to the Trust’s requirement for a tool to support collaborative working, the technology available to meet the requirement, and whether associated costs deliver value for money. Current position
1.5. As the Trust advances in its commitment to deliver high quality services such as those illustrated by the Service Improvement Programme, it is essential the organisation is able to support good quality services through well informed decision making for services users and carers.
1.6. In line with the QIPP (Quality Innovation Productivity and Prevention) challenge, the Trust is committed to lean working. That is, removing unnecessary administrative overheads to optimise the Trust’s workforce and thereby enable staff to focus their time and energy towards client care. Much of this can be achieved by providing ready access to relevant information and knowledge, building clinical networks to allow sharing of best practice, and by using technology to support efficient ways of working.
1.7. The strategic outline case for MS SharePoint noted that three main sources of information currently exist in the Trust, namely the Intranet, network file shares and e-mail. These three disparate applications are used independently of each other, resulting in duplication of information across the Trust, no real means of verifying the integrity of documents, laborious processes to search for relevant information or people, and a lack of modern technology whereby information can be presented according to relevance.
1.8. Moreover, lack of integration across current information systems prohibits staff from sharing information and knowledge across the Trust, that is, across directorates and professional groups. There is also a “boundary” around the Trust’s current information sources, in the sense that partner organisations who work collaboratively with the Trust such as GPs, PCTs and Local Authorities have no real means of accessing key Trust information relevant to them for example policies and procedures, or updates on key programmes or initiatives, other than through e-mail.
1.9. Many procedures are still largely manual; they are reliant on people remembering to submit information, in the right place, at the right time, and to the right person. Examples of these are audits, recruitment, payroll variation
(PV), and establishment variation (EV). This reliance on manual processes inevitably leads to errors, carries an administrative burden, and can result in poor use of manpower.
1.10. Compounding this is the lack of streamlining of processes across teams and directorates. As a consequence, many procedures are duplicated across the Trust, with different people gathering the same information or performing the same task, sometimes several times over. A typical example of this is data gathering for audits or for new projects.
1.11. While the current Intranet offers some opportunity for staff to obtain information from a known location, it has approached the end of its useful life, with very few consultancy firms available to reliably provide updates; nor is it possible to maintain the current Intranet in-house due to its technical infrastructure which requires strong programming skills using what is now deemed old technology to perform the simplest of tasks.
1.12. In summary, if the Trust is to make the required efficiency savings, develop and deliver new ways of working to support best quality care, and position itself for the future by demonstrating and promoting its achievements, it must work towards the following:
• Improve access to, and sharing of, knowledge and information, both within the organisation, and externally with its partners
• Automate and streamline processes to collect and process data and information with minimum effort to support lean working
• Deploy good collaboration tools to encourage participation and harvesting of new ideas
1.13. To help address the above, the Trust would benefit from a tool that offers the following functionality:
o Document management – including version control, automatic
removal of duplicates, standard and consistent approach for a document library available through a web browser system, automated document storage according to classification
o Automated workflow management – ability to collect data on-line
through “intelligent” forms, automatically assign the owner for each step based on rules, and track the status through audit trails
o Dashboards – publishing of “At a Glance” statuses for Key
Performance Indicators
o Collaborations tools – i.e. communities of interest, discussion
forums, blogging; on-line surveys to collect staff feedback or conduct audits; on-line document reviews, that is, the ability for multiple users to review and update the same document at the same time
o Advanced search features – ability to search documents according
to content or document titles using intelligent “metadata”; search for people according to user profiles, which can include special interests and expertise in addition to area of work and location
o Extranet portals – extend access to Trust information and
discussions to partner organisations connected to the N3 network, including GPs, PCTs and Local Authorities
o Security controls – to ensure access to information is available only
to those who need and should have access according to their role.
o Single portal – through which every member of staff is able to access information and knowledge, relevant to their need
1.14. This business case describes options available to address the above, and recommends a way forward.
1.15. Any tools reviewed as part of the options appraisal will comply with standards for accessibility.
2. Strategic case National context
2.1. The QIPP agenda remains high profile within the NHS, i.e. Quality, Innovation, Prevention and Productivity. A recent publication by the NHS Confederation on Back Office Efficiency and Management as part of the QIPP challenge reported the following:
“Workflow
Workflow is a process tool which delivers the right work to the right people at the right time and, in doing so, optimises the processing time within your operations.
Workflow solutions manage, distribute and monitor work as it progresses through pre-defined business processes and therefore assist with the efficient running of an organisation’s operations. Workflow enables a range of benefits including process visibility – which is essential for tracking progress and improvement.
The benefit of workflow technology is that it streamlines and simplifies clinical and business processes, connecting providers directly to the information they need – where, when, and how they need it. By managing care transitions and information gaps between diverse systems, departments and facilities, workflow technology can deliver crucial patient information with speed, efficiency and logic. It bridges the gap between the business and the clinicians.”
2.2. Recent developments in commissioning will see GPs holding a much stronger role in this arena. The Trust will need to collaborate and engage in dialogue with multiple interested parties, effectively, and efficiently. The Trust will also need some means of demonstrating and promoting its achievements to ensure existing services are sustained and new business can be secured.
2.3. Freedom of Information (FOI) - Current filing systems are disparate across directorates, with few standards for version control. An orderly filing system, enabling easy identification of documents, with true version control and good search facilities will help the Trust to meet FOI requests efficiently, within statutory time limits, and with integrity.
The Trust must comply with the requirements of the CQC, and as such, requires a tool that will support:
• robust data gathering for evidence to support compliance with core standards.
• compliance with policies and procedures
Currently, much of the above is accomplished using manual processes. A tool that enables automatic notifications to be issued to relevant staff when a document is near expiration will help ensure policies (or indeed any documents) are kept up-to-date. Similarly, automating some of the steps associated with action plans and the ability to prompt and track actions on-line will go a long way towards strengthening governance.
2.5. The Information Revolution
Liberating the NHS - An Information Revolution has recently been published for consultation, highlighting the need for good quality information, that is relevant and accessible, and establishing an environment where using information to build knowledge becomes the norm.
Local context
2.6. The Trust’s objectives are to:
• Improve the quality of the services we deliver, underpinned by the recovery approach (Quality and Recovery)
• Develop and deliver a modern model of service provision, within appropriate building environments (Modern services)
• Support existing services to thrive and become more competitive, and to develop and deliver new services, relationships and business opportunities (Sustain and develop new services)
• Develop the capacity and capability of the workforce to deliver our vision and strategic objectives, while operating efficiently and effectively (Workforce) • Grow and develop mental health knowledge and practice and its application
for current and future generations (Knowledge Management)
How does collaborative software help support the Trust objectives?
Quality and Recovery
2.7. The Trust is fully committed to the Service Improvement programme. Collaboration is a critical success factor for this programme of work.
2.8. Implementing the new recovery model will require colleagues to readily communicate with each other across a variety of professional groups, and geographical boundaries, share latest ideas and examples of good practice, and obtain feedback quickly. Using familiar means of communication that is web-based with the ability to search for the right people and engage in dialogue for example through blogging, along with the capability to push information targeted to the relevant audience will make a significant contribution to this requirement, while allowing the momentum of new and innovative ideas to be retained.
2.9. Improving Outcomes – improvements to outcomes can be achieved through numerous means, which can include ensuring staff have access to the latest policies and procedures, guidance on best practice, and outcomes from research.
Similarly, the use of dashboards can also help support improvement in outcomes by highlighting progress with particular initiatives, and alerting staff to changes required in the configuration of services if certain areas are shown to be weak. The Trust is in the early stages of developing an in-house dashboard solution. Ideally, these would be available from a common user interface, reducing the need for additional training, while taking advantage of the ability to push information that is relevant to staff.
Audit can also be a valuable source of evidence which can demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of services. Electronic forms and workflows, and on-line surveys can both be used to support audit.
2.10. The Electronic Document Management (EDM) project has a primary objective to convert paper documents to an electronic format, which in turn, requires an efficient document management system to maximise the benefits electronic documents can offer. Version control and robust security for access are mandatory requirements for any document management system. Collaborative software includes document management, which in turn can provide access to historical documents which can inform the best way forward for the future.
Sustain and develop new services
2.11. Noting the innovative nature of the Service Improvement Programme, the Trust would benefit from the capability to publish its services and outcomes both internally and externally to its key stakeholders. In turn, this would improve transparency, and would place the Trust in a strong position with respect to commissioning, paving the way for the future.
Workforce
2.12. A standard and consistent document library available through a web browser, together with excellent search capabilities, not only releases staff time to find information, but will widen access to relevant documentation, which can further support training and encourage cross fertilisation of ideas without overwhelming staff through information overload.
2.13. Productivity gains must be made to ensure the Trust can demonstrate value for money for the services it provides. One of the greatest advantages any collaborative tool is its ability to automate manual processes. For example, intelligent forms can be created, with users being prompted to select data from drop down lists, and through business rules, the form is passed to the correct person for processing.
The status of the process can be monitored through audit trails, and staff can be confident they have submitted the correct information, and to the correct person. Electronic workflows can also help reduce mistakes, and reduce the time taken to chase after and correct errors; and taken one step further, can facilitate the electronic uploading of information to other systems (e.g. Electronic Staff Record (ESR)) thereby removing the need for manual transcription.
It should be noted that this concept of automating workflows can apply to both standard procedures, and to actions resulting from meetings, workshops or consultations.
2.14. As with any development programme, new proposals inevitably involve
documents, discussions and approvals, often over a large population dispersed over a wide geographic area. Strong version control will help ensure
consistency and currency of information with clarity on the status of the document (including approval status) thereby avoiding risks associated with miscommunication, while the ability to review documents collaboratively can reduce travel, and offer staff far greater flexibility and more time in their working day to focus on the true nature of their job.
2.15. Equally, through the use of modern technology and collaborative software, staff can benefit from up-to-date skill set, enhancing staff development opportunities. 2.16. Collaborative software can also support action learning sets, allowing staff to
come together on-line to share their experiences without the need to travel for face-to-face meetings.
2.17. Finally, increased participation in Trust events and consultation processes through the use of on-line discussion forums or surveys, can give staff the confidence that their voice has been heard.
Knowledge Management
2.18. Knowledge Management – sharing of information and knowledge is fundamental to knowledge management. A good knowledge management strategy requires the following:
• System to capture and share new ideas and information • Ability to connect people with common interests
• Ability to find information according to relevance
• Informed decision making by integrating information into a single trusted source
The tools described in 1.11 would go a long way towards meetings these needs, supporting the Trust’s position as a learning organisation.
2.19. The Local QIPP agenda
The Trust is reviewing a number of initiatives as part of the local plan to address the QIPP challenge. An illustration of how collaborative software can support a selection of these initiatives is shown below.
Local Initiative Collaborative Software
Reconfigure community services Knowledge sharing during and after the transition period:
Easy access to:
• information and relevant documents • The right people with relevant expertise Improve discharge and step
care arrangements between
mental health and primary care primary care Maximise workforce productivity
– “A Manageable Day” Reduce the administrative overhead: • Workflows to reduce errors in common processes
• Easy access to information including policies and procedures
• Satisfaction surveys to help identify areas that are strong and those that are weak
Claiming the long term conditions dividend – Implement NICE guidance
• Access to relevant policies and procedures
• Collaborative development of guidance and monitoring through audit
Critical Success Factors
2.20. It should be noted that while any tool that offers the wealth of functionality described in 2.11 would greatly support the Trust in meeting its objectives, changing the way we work to make best use of technology is absolutely critical to the success of any deployment.
2.21. The project to deploy a collaboration tool is therefore dependent on the commitment of project members and end users alike to secure adoption, to both deploy and sustain the new tool.
2.22. The scope of related projects must be clarified and project and programme interfaces must be actively managed to 1) avoid duplication of effort and 2) reduce the risk of missed opportunities that effective joint working can offer. 2.23. In particular, a successful outcome of the ESR Data Structures project is critical
to the success of the collaboration project to ensure integrity of staff details to populate which can populate a staff directory.
3. Options Appraisal
Workshops and 1:1 meetings have been held with key stakeholders across the Trust, demonstrations of products have taken place, and visits to other sites (PCTs and Mental Health Trust) have taken place, which confirmed the Trust’s own business requirements and priorities.
The requirements and benefits can be met through the MS SharePoint product, or equivalent product from another supplier.
Microsoft products, including MS SharePoint, can be purchased with or without guaranteed upgrades over a period of three years, otherwise known as Software Assurance.
Non-Microsoft products are typically upgraded as part of the annual on-going support charges.
Microsoft also offers Enterprise Client Access Licences, known as “CALS”. An e-CAL provides a user with a licence to use the Enterprise version of multiple Microsoft products on their device (including desktops and mobile devices). E-CALS can be purchased outright, or leased on an annual basis, where the leasing arrangement will include free upgrades.
Most notably, e-CALs include the SharePoint and Lync Server Microsoft products. MS Lync Server integrates with MS SharePoint, to provide additional capability, namely Instant Messaging and “Presencing”.
Using Instant Messaging and Presencing together with SharePoint, would for example, enable a user to search for a member of staff with specific expertise, establish whether that member of staff is available to be contacted or not, then engage in dialogue through instant messaging. This is particularly useful for staff based in different geographical locations, reducing the need to make phone calls.
3.1. Description of Options The long list of options is as follows:
Option 0 – Do Minimal that is, develop current tools to support collaboration
Option 1 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise version, through the purchase of licences, with Software Assurance
Option 2 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise version, through the purchase of licences, without Software Assurance
Option 3 – Deploy MS SharePoint Standard version, with Software Assurance Option 4 – Deploy MS SharePoint Standards Licences, without Software Assurance Option 5 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise Licences, followed by a roll-out of
e-CALs, through the purchase of licences, with Software Assurance
Option 6 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise Licences, followed by a roll-out of e-CALs, through the purchase of licences, without Software Assurance
Option 7 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise Licences, followed by a roll-out of e-CALs, without Software Assurance, through the purchase of licences for MS Enterprise, but using a leasing agreement for e-CALS
Options 8 – Deploy a non-Microsoft product. Software Assurance
Software Assurance is not deemed value for money. Each licence carries a 50% charge of the original licence cost, and will only provide a single upgrade within a three year period. Upgrades are available, typically every three years. Microsoft supports current and 2 previous versions of software.
Standard versus Enterprise versions of MS SharePoint
The Standard version of MS SharePoint does not support the deployment of intelligent electronic forms which can subsequently interface with other Trust business systems such as ESR. Intelligent forms are required to enable many of the Trust’s administrative processes to be streamlined, which in turn, can deliver cash releasing benefits. Nor does the Standard version provide business intelligence solutions such as Dashboard capability.
e-CALs
The outright purchase of e-CALS is not deemed value for money, with each licence carrying a one-off cost of ~£250 (excl vat).
Therefore options to deploy the Standard version of MS SharePoint, software assurance, and the outright purchase of e-CALS have been discounted from the options appraisal below.
The short list of options is therefore:
Option 0 – Do Minimal – this option would retain the status quo in terms of software products, and would constrain the Trust in working towards productivity gains or encouraging dialogue through limited development of current tools
Option 2 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise version, through the purchase of licences, without Software Assurance
Option 7 – Deploy MS SharePoint Enterprise Licences, followed by a roll-out of e-CALs, without Software Assurance, through the purchase of Enterprise licences but using a leasing agreement for e-CALS
Option 8 – Deploy a non-Microsoft product with similar capability as MS SharePoint 3.2 Appraisal of Benefits
Reflecting on the current problems the Trust faces in relation to retrieving and using information to maximum effect, to help staff perform day-to-day duties and to build knowledge to support the Trust going forward in the future, there are key areas where improvements must be made.
The key areas for improvement are summarised as follows:
• Reduce the administrative overhead to collect, store, retrieve and dispose of information
• Access to information, that is relevant to the user, through a common user interface, from a trusted source
• Compliance with governance arrangements through policy controls such as retention schedules and notifications of updates and expiration
• Ability to engage in dialogue with colleagues regardless of the geographical location
• Managing the technical overhead to maintain information sources
For the purposes of analysis, the above are described more fully in the table below:
Benefit Full description
B1 Productivity
a. Time to retrieve and maintain information such as documents through i) intelligent and intuitive search facilities ii) single information source using a common user interface and iii) accessing information according to relevance
b. Time to find the right people through intelligent searches and a single information source (staff directory)
c. (Reduce) need to travel through on-line document reviews for MS Word documents and MS PowerPoint
presentations
d. Administrative overhead through integrated information systems, and reduced need to transcribe information e. Workload to create on-line forms (no more programming!)
B2 Overhead in technical support
a. Avoidance of multiple departmental systems and databases, most notably an Electronic Document Management System EDM (reader for scanned clinical notes)
b. Turn-around time to provide users with access to relevant document libraries
c. Eliminate costs to maintain a legacy system B3 Governance (compliance)
a. Governance through true version control for
documentation, and a central repository for policies and procedures
b. Compliance with procedures through automated workflow management and alerts
B4 Isolation for mobile workers a. Access to information and on-line dialogue e.g. blogging. B5 Up-to-date skill set for staff a. Staff are trained in use of modern technology, facilitating staff development. B6 Partnership working
a. Access to information, for external parties e.g. PCTs and Local Authorities.
b. Collaboration and sharing of good practice through on-line discussion, and communities of practice
B7 Effective organisation through streamlined processes.
a. Standardised data collection through intelligent forms, reducing errors in data entry and delays in authorisation b. Proactive approach through dashboard facilities and
managing risks effectively.
The following table summarises the assessment of the high level benefits of each of option.
Benefit Score / Benefit Value (w x s) Benefit
ID Benefit Heading Type Weighting Do Minimal Option 0
Option 2 SharePoint Enterprise Purchase Option 7 SharePoint Enterprise & e-CAL Option 8 Another product set B1 Productivity CR 20 1 (20) 3 (60) 4 (80) 3 (60)
B2 Technical support overhead CA 5 0 (0) 3 (15) 2 (10) 2 (10)
B3 Governance Q 20 1 (20) 4 (80) 4 (80) 4 (80)
B4 Support for mobile workers Q 15 1 (15) 3 (45) 4 (60) 3 (45)
staff
B6 Supports partnership working Q 10 1 (10) 3 (30) 4 (40) 3 (30)
B7 Enables an effective organisation Q 20 2 (40) 4 (80) 4 (80) 4 (80)
Total Scores 100 (115) (340) (380) (335)
The benefit score was on a scale of 0 – 5, where 5 = high 1 = low and 0 = no value.
There are potential cash savings to be gained from automating business processes. Much of the Trust’s administration is currently distributed across the Trust. Adoption of a collaborative tool with automated processes will see a minimum of 2 hours of time being saved for each staff member per week (5. Economic case), and this saving will rise considerably for those heavily engaged in administrative duties such as processing forms and transcribing data. This cumulative saving has the potential to consolidate and rationalise the administrative effort across the Trust as a whole, thereby introducing potential cash releasing benefits.
The potential benefits to the organisation of this proposed investment could also be significant in terms of improved governance and effective operation.
A small consultation comprising clinicians and non-clinicians was carried out to assess how a collaborative tool could help them. Overwhelmingly, their perceived benefits included increased productivity through effective document management, by having relevant information “pushed” to them, and a reduced administrative burden through the use of intelligent systems.
Moreover, a modern content management system which does not require programming skills will enable updating of team and departmental pages to be delegated to team leaders; and the capabilities of a truly integrated system will remove much of the manual labour and duplication of work to manage content while empowering the Trust to manage the Intranet without reliance on third parties.
3.3 Appraisal of Risks
Ref Description Impact
R1 Poor document management. Documents (scanned or un-scanned) cannot be effectively searched, or retrieved; some “lost”.
System cannot accommodate “metadata” captured with scanned documents. R2 Limited user buy-in for new system. Productivity gains are not made
Inconsistency in availability of information e.g. departments/team sites are not maintained.
R3 Sharing information across organisations is difficult. Some external partners do not have access to the N3 network.
Trust profile is not sustained, potentially affecting commissioning.
R4 Demand outstrips capacity of technical
infrastructure Benefits are limited to restricted users. R5 Significant training programme is required Significant training resources required to
support implementation. R6 Scope creep during implementation. Loss of control in governance
arrangements.
R7 Poor compliance with standards. Inappropriate use of information or staff time.
Ref Description Impact
Benefits associated with effective collaboration cannot be met. R8 Poor management of interfaces with other
projects and programmes, most notably, EDM, ESR Data Structures and the Service Improvement Programme.
Work is duplicated or missed across both projects.
R9 The virtualisation full business case is not
approved. Additional costs incurred to accommodate the solution. R10 The system cannot be sustained beyond
the life of the project. Further investment is required to upgrade the system. R11 There is insufficient capacity within the
project to deploy the system to maximum affect.
Benefits identified are not realised.
The following table summarises the assessment of high level risks associated with each option.
I x L = Risk Scores Risk
Ref Risk Description Option 0 Do
Minimal Option 2 SharePoint Enterprise Purchase Option 7 SharePoint Enterprise & e-CAL Option 8 Another product set
R1 Poor document management 2x5=10 2x2=4 2x2=4 2x2=4
R2 Limited “buy-in” 2x2=4 2x4=8 2x4=8 2x4=8
R3 Sharing information across organisations is difficult 3x3=9 3x2=6 3x2=6 3x2=6
R4 Demand outstrips capacity 4x4=16 4x3=12 4x3=12 4x3=12
R5 Significant training programme 1x1=1 3x2=6 4x2=8 3x3=9
R6 Scope creep during implementation 2x1=2 3x2=6 4x2=8 3x2=6
R7 Poor compliance with standards 2x4=8 2x2=4 2x2=4 2x2=4
R8 Poor management of project/programme interfaces 3x1=3 5x2=10 5x2=10 5x2=10
R9 Virtualisation full business case is not approved 3x1=3 3x1=3 3x1=3 3x1=3
R10 System cannot be sustained beyond project
closure 4x5=20 3x4=12 3x2=6 3x2=6
R11 Insufficient capacity to support deployment 3x1=3 3x2=6 3x3=9 3x3=9
Total Risk Score 79 77 78 77
Risk Score = Impact x Likelihood; on a scale of 0 – 5, where 5 = high, 1 = low and 0 = no risk.
3.4 Appraisal of Costs
The projected costs of the short-listed options are summarised in the table below.
Indicative Costs Cost Type Do Minimal Option 0
Option 2 SharePoint Enterprise Purchase Option 7 SharePoint Enterprise & e-CAL Option 8* Another product set Project Costs Project Management £0 £0 £0 £0
Software Licence Costs £0 £151,560 £637,200
Consultancy £0 £90,000 £12,000
Contingency £0 £22,000 £22,000 £22,000
Total Project Costs £0 £256,000 £263,560 £671,200
Recurrent Costs (Revenue)
Cash Releasing Savings (6 years) £0 -£0 -£0 -£0
Deployment Support (6 Years) £0 £345,000 £345,000 £345,000
Software Support (6 Years) £48,000 £28,800 £201,600 £474,300
Total Investment Lifetime Costs £48,000 £629,800 £810,160 £1,490,500 * Estimated cost based on indicative costs provided following an exploratory product demonstration. Licence and consultancy costs have been provided as one cost. A full procurement would be needed to establish actual costs.
It is proposed that a fixed term contract for one of the deployment support posts is established and the requirement reviewed after 12 months. The requirement to extend this post would take into account the need for specialist technical support, whether knowledge transfer could be effected to existing post(s), and the potential for further revenue savings if the second post is not required beyond year 1 or year 2.
3.5 Appraisal of Options
The summary appraisal of options appears in the table below
Option 0 Do Minimal Option 2 SharePoint Enterprise Purchase Option 7 SharePoint Enterprise & e-CAL Option 8 Another product set Total Costs * £48,000 £629,800 £810,160 £1,490,500 Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Benefit Value 115 340 380 335 Ranking 4th 3rd 4th 2nd Risk Score 79 77 78 77 Ranking 4th 1st = 3rd 1st =
* Total Costs = project costs plus 5 year life time revenue costs for period of investment.
Although the table above specifies the ranking of each option strictly according to the scores achieved, it should be noted that the benefits and risks for each option with the exception of Option 0 (Do Minimal) do not vary significantly.
4. Commercial case
Microsoft Licences:
4.1. Following the withdrawal of the Enterprise Wide Agreement with Connecting for Health (CfH), the Trust’s Large Authorised Reseller (LAR) has been chosen, as advised by CfH.
4.2. Additionally, the Trust can opt for the provision of licences through the London Procurement Programme (LPP). Provision of licences, training and consultancy will comply with the Trust’s standing financial instructions to ensure value for money is obtained, and a tender will be issued as required.
4.3. Standard terms and conditions for any Microsoft products will apply for maintenance and support.
5. Economic Case
All the options were analysed and the economic analysis of each of the options are shown below.
5.1 – Option 0: Do Minimal
Project Management Software Licence Costs Consultancy Contingency Recurrent Costs (Revenue) Deployment Support Software Support ! ! "# $% & % # ' # () ( ( ( * % # ! # + ) )* ) ) ) * ! " #$ % & ' ! ' ( ) , - # ! . , + /
5.2 – Option 2: Purchase MS SharePoint Enterprise, without software assurance Project Management Software Licence Costs Consultancy ) * 0 Contingency Recurrent Costs (Revenue) Deployment Support 0 0 0 Software Support ) ) ) 0 ) ! ! "# 0 * ( ( ( $% & ) ( % # ' # () ( ( ( * ) * 0)* * 0 * 0 * ! " #$ % * ! ( ) , - # ! . , + /
5.3 – Option 7: Purchase MS SharePoint/Lease e-CALs
'
Project Management
Software Licence Costs ) *
Consultancy ) * 0 * Contingency Recurrent Costs (Revenue) Deployment Support 0 0 0 Software Support 0 0 ) ! ! "# 0 * ( ( ( $% & ) ( % # ' # () ( ( ( * % # ! # + * 0)* * * ) * +',! " #$ % * + + ! ( ) , - # ! . , + /
5.4 – Option 8: Purchase a non-Microsoft product
,
Project Management
Software Licence Costs (
Consultancy 0 * 0 Contingency Recurrent Costs (Revenue) Deployment Support 0 0 0 Software Support ( ( ( (* 0 (* 0 (* 0 0 ) ! ! "# 0 * ( ( ( $% & ( ( ( 0 0 ( ( % # ' # () ( ( ( * % # ! # + ( 0 * ( ( *0 + ! " #$ % +,! ( ) , - # ! . , + / 6. Preferred Option
There is little difference in the risk of each of the 4 options; and little difference in the benefits of each option with the exception of Option 0.
The preferred option is derived therefore from benefit and best value.
Although, looking ahead to the future, e-CALS (Enterprise licences for a portfolio of MS products) would be an enabler for Unified Communications (that is, bringing together different modes of communication to the desktop), at this stage, the benefits of MS SharePoint and (Option 2) will best enable the Trust to be more efficient and effective.
7. Affordability (Financial Case)
7.1. The costs of the preferred Option, Option 2, are summarised in the table below: -. #) )/" 0 1 2 / / / 0 / / / * # + & - % ) 3 4 & & ) 5 * 6&" 7#8 9 1 " " + + 234'5 ) 0 ( +# " + + 2 4'5 0 ( - % :" 00 #; ) % " ) 6% **0 ) 0 0 (0 0*0 ) 0 # + / * 0 ( # / - +7 ""# 0 0 0 0 0 7#' 8 7 ""# ) ) ) - % : " 00 #; +, ,,, + + , + ,+ +,, , % < : = 0 0 #; 0 ) ! ! "# $% & % < : = 0 0 #; 0 6 7: 0 ( **0 0 ( 0 (0 0 ( *0 ( ( *
7.2. The cost of this investment is included in the Trust’s annual plan. 7.3. Capital costs will be funded from the IM&T capital budget.
8. Achievability (Management Case) 8.1 High Level Plan
The preferred option would be implemented via a mandated project following PRINCE2 project management methodology. The following table summarises the key activities in the project with the proposed timescales.
Project Activity Timescales
Project Initiation Feb 2011
Tendering for Management Consultancy Mar 11 - Apr 11
Design and Prioritisation Apr 11– May 11
Implement Priority 1 applications May 11 - Oct 11 Implement Priority 2 applications Oct 11 – Mar 12 Implement Priority 3 applications Apr 12 – Sep 12 Implement Priority 4 applications Sep 12– Apr 13
Project Closure May 2013
8.2 Project Sponsor
The sponsor will be the IM&T Steering Group. 8.3 Project Executive
The Project executive will be the Director of Finance. 8.4 Project Board
The Project Board will have overall responsibility for deploying the electronic document management solution and the authority to approve the Trust’s progress through the various deployment stages. It is responsible for assuring the sponsor that the project is delivering the expected benefits and being managed to expected standards, timescales and budgets.
Role Name
Project Executive/Chair
(accountable for the project) Director of Finance – Mike Naylor
Senior Users Deputy Director of Finance – Frances Smith Associate Director of Nursing – Tom Clarke
Recruitment & Development Manager – Daran Golby Director of Service Development and Performance – Glynn Dodd
Director of Corporate Affairs – Angela Attah Senior Supplier Director of IM&T – David Green
Head of Communications – Alison Brumfitt
Implementation of MS SharePoint is complex, but presents many opportunities to implement effective systems across the entire Trust. As such, the Project Board
membership will be reviewed regularly to ensure the membership sufficiently represents each workstream.
8.5 Project Manager
The Trust project manager who manages day to day project activities on behalf of the project board will be Anita Ghosh, IM&T Project Manager. The project manager will also manage the project team, represented by the different work streams contributing to the deliverables for the project to help meet the project objectives.
8.6 Benefits Realisation
Benefits realisation will be monitored by the IM&T Change Management Lead and the IM&T Steering Group.
8.7 Risk Management
The project risk management strategy will be aligned to the Trust’s risk management strategy. Critical risks will be escalated according to the IM&T Steering as deemed necessary by the project board. The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for all project exceptions and will be the custodian of the risk register.
9. Approval
The Trust Board is asked to approve the total investment of * for the implementation of MS SharePoint to enable the Trust to improve its efficient and effective operation.
10. Appendices
The following appendices are available from the IM&T Project Manager on request: Appendix A – Detailed breakdown of costs
Appendix B – Outline description of collaboration software
11. References None.
