Agenda item

Purpose: To receive a briefing on progress with the implementation of Timelord, the Council’s flexible working programme, and consider whether further work is required by the Select Committee. 

The Committee received a presentation on progress with Timelord (the Council’s flexible working programme) (Agenda Item 6).

Jackie Jordan made the following points as part of her presentation:

·                    The purpose of Timelord was to create a number of benefits for the Council, its customers and its staff.  The Timelord Programme was also tasked with achieving the Council’s Office Accommodation Strategy (2007-2011) Action Plan.

·                    Improved responsiveness to customers was felt to be possible as staff travel time could be reduced and by having equipment available they did not necessarily need to report into the office.  Documents could be printed via Citrix, however staff were advised against printing at home, where possible, for security purposes.  Some staff in Social Care had portable printers for printing off certain documents in a clients home.  

·                    An intended benefit was to reduce staff stress levels and sickness absence.  Examples of where this was possible was the removed need to drive in stressful rush hour traffic on a daily basis and staff who did not feel well enough to travel into work could potentially work from home instead.

·                    Phases 1 (which was the pilot project involving 65 staff moving to Turnhams Green) and 2 (450 staff moving to West Street House/West Point) had been completed and reviews conducted.  These reviews took the form of staff surveys, focus group meetings and use of statistical data.  The business case/cost model was reviewed at the end of each phase and before commencement of the next phase.

·                    Phase 1 had been reviewed after 100 days and after 12 months.  The survey results after 100 days were not particularly positive, but showed a significant improvement after 12 months.  Although the numbers involved were small a particular benefit was reported as greater responsiveness to customers.

·                    The 100 day survey following the completion of phase 2 (which was responded to by 221 staff) had, like phase 1, received some negative feedback.  A contributing factor in both these cases was felt to be the fact that this was a period of significant change for staff.  The next review was due in December 2010. 

·                    One area of concern was raised by service managers who objected to the loss of offices and drop in facility for staff.  This had been corrected almost immediately and managers at Head of Service level and above would have a fixed desk regardless of their workstyle and a small seating area.  Each Director had a dedicated meeting room as did each service area. 

·                    Staff were becoming more confident with remote working, but work was needed to mitigate the negative impact of remote working on team cohesion.  Attempts had been made to manage this with phase 1 staff by the use of a tailored workshop to produce an action plan, however this was difficult to roll out as concerns varied between service areas. 

·                    The increased number of staff wishing to continue working for the Council since Timelord was implemented was pleasing.  Reasons given for this included reduced travel and less disruption.

·                    Senior management took a view on each work role to determine whether it could be performed away from the office.  However, staff identified as homeflex could opt out from working from home if they wished and be fixed.  Staff identified as free did not necessarily have to work from home, they could conduct work in the community and they would have access to a desk.  Staff who chose, for example, to be homeflex had the option to revert back to fixed after 100 days, but none had asked to do so to date. 

Members were concerned at some of the feedback received from phase 2.  Particularly that 47% of those surveyed felt that the effectiveness of team working had reduced.  Members felt this needed to be addressed as it could affect turnover.

Another concern was the increased stress level reported by staff.  Jackie Jordan explained that other factors were named by staff as a cause of this, for example the Social Care Transformation Programme. 

It was suggested that the next review of phase 2 should be brought forward to gauge the views of staff at an earlier stage and to assess whether different measures were having an impact.  Jackie Jordan assured Members that areas to improve had been identified based on the lessons learnt and changes would be made.  However, it could take time before staff felt the benefits of these and this was why the next review was not scheduled until December 2010.  A delay to the programme would cause a loss of impetus, it would be difficult to restart and would not achieve the financial savings identified, most notably from accommodation. 

Jackie Jordan advised that it was difficult to identify the impact Timelord was having on productivity since ‘other things’, i.e. other change programmes, did not remain equal.  Communication with line managers and others should not be an issue as there were policies in place to ensure this was covered, i.e. telephone usage standards, access to Outlook diaries etc. 

Jackie Jordan concluded her presentation by making the following points:

·                    In terms of savings, phase 1 would continue to incur costs but these were offset by savings elsewhere in the programme.  The acquisition of Turnhams Green, West Street House and West Point had added nearly £7m to the value of the Council’s balance sheet. 

·                    A change made for phase 3 was to increase the size of flexi desks.  This was in response to concerns raised at the reviews. 

·                    The decision had been taken to replace existing network/power considered to be end of life in line with phase 3, as it would minimise further disruption at a later date.

Members were eager to conduct further work on this topic, particularly to address the concerns raised, and discussed options for doing so. 

Councillor Jeff Brooks proposed that four Heads of Service (who had been through the process) should be invited to represent the views of their staff and their own experiences.  This was seconded by Councillor Laszlo Zverko and agreed by the Select Committee.

RESOLVED that four Heads of Service would be invited to the next meeting to represent the views of their staff and their own experiences.