Agenda item

Corporate Strategy Monitoring - Recommendations of Targets for Key Performance Measures

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed to the meeting Mike Kirby, Director of Strategy and Performance; Donna Talbot, Head of Business Intelligence; Michael Walder, Information, Intelligence and Performance Manager; Joanne Reed, Head of Service Policy, Information and Commissioning (Live Well); Dave Carr, Head of Service Policy, Information and Commissioning (Start Well); John Davies, Head of Highways; and Becky Joyce, Interim Head of Strategic Development – Agency, Economic Development and Officers.

 

The report presented explained that performance indicators had been agreed by Cabinet Committee on Performance Improvement against the five objectives of the Corporate Strategy.  These indicators would form the content of future quality corporate performance reports to the Cabinet Committee on Performance Improvement. Targets had also been proposed for the indicators.

 

The committee enquired if it would be more appropriate in some areas where targets were proposed, to be monitored instead of having a target set. It was highlighted that there was an opportunity for regular updates regarding performance against targets through the Cabinet Committee for Performance Improvement (CCPI). The Corporate Strategy was also looking at a schedule of deep dive investigations of how performance was being delivered. The committee felt there was a role for scrutiny to play in how or if these targets were being met or not.

 

Regarding performance indicators on repairs for highways defects, it was noted that timescales were measured quarterly. Over the Christmas period there were a number of carriageway defects that were not dealt within the timescales as detailed in the targets due to tarmac plants being closed. Members were informed that looking forward it would be a good idea to look at how the county council dealt with those times when tarmac plants were shut as there were ways to overcome this with temporary measures.

 

In terms of the delivery of Lancashire County Council's digital strategy, the committee noted that the performance measure was that 100% of people were able to access information and stated there were a number of people that did not want to or were unable to engage in digital. The delivery of the digital strategy needed to ensure that this issue was addressed, this issue would be picked up in the annual deep dive. Lancashire County Council would be working on the development and roll out of its systems and the development of training programmes.

 

Members felt that in addition to the benchmarking, it would be useful to have the previous year or previous quarters figures for comparison purposes to help indicate the direction of travel which showed critical information. They were informed that where the county council could and had the relevant trajectory, it could show this. The committee pointed out that it was difficult to determine from the report whether Lancashire County Council was getting better or worse. The direction of travel and clear indicators such as the traffic light system was important. The committee was informed that a full quarterly performance report went to the CCPI and was available on the system, a copy of the report would be shared with members.

 

It was noted that the target for revenue forecast outturn percentage variance to budget was currently 1.5% and the target for budget outturn variance for 2020/21 was 0% for variance to budget. Members felt a more realistic target was to say below 1% rather than specifically saying 0%.

 

It was pointed out by the committee that Lancashire County Council previously had a multi access system for reporting highway defects, now it was targeted to reporting via the internet and there was a four stage process for reporting one defect. There was a request to look at the figures about how many people reported highway issues before going digital and how many reported issues after going digital. It was thought it might be the case that Lancashire County Council was not improving its highways service but just restricting the way people could report issues. This could be the same across other services.

 

Questions were raised in regards to how the data was collected in regards to performance indicators for reporting purposes. The committee was informed that data was collected through the HAMS system for Highways. For other services data was taken from operational systems. All the performance indicators were based on operational data which dealt with the day to day basis of the authority.

 

Regarding highway defects, it was felt by members that some autonomy should be given to the people who fix the potholes. It was stated by the committee that if an officer had come out to fix a particular pothole, if there was another damaged hole close by that had not been reported, it should be fixed and this should be allowed rather than having to wait for the second hole to be also reported and go through the whole process. Members were informed that this should be happening now as the Highways Service realised it was not sensible or cost effective when officers had to revisit sites due to other holes nearby.

 

Resolved: That;

 

  i.  The Internal Scrutiny Committee note the report and the performance indicators presented.

  ii.  The Internal Scrutiny Committee receive the full quarterly monitoring report.

 

 

Supporting documents: