Agenda item

Councillor John Williams advised the Committee that since the publication of the report (which only made reference to Key Performance Indicators [KPIs] statistic from Q1), the Q2 KPI data had been published and that it continued the trends shown by the Q1 data.

Councillor Richard Stobart joined the Committee.

The Head of Transformation, HR and Corporate Services presented the report. Officers provided the following points of clarity, in response to questions:

·       The comparison with “a range of organisations” in page 7 of the report referred to both private and public sector organisations.

·       The reduction in projected net cost for agency staff was based on both the salary costs and percentage to cover other costs, such as pensions, associated with hiring staff on a permanent basis.

·       That staff turnover reduction was a comparison between figures from the 9 months of the trial and the 9 months preceding the trial.

·       That the KPIs presented in the report were the public KPIs agreed, by both the Scrutiny & Overview and Employment & Staffing Committees, to be reported as part of the monitoring of the 4DW trial. Officers advised that further management information, beyond KPIs, was collected by the Council and further information could be added in future reports if required.

·       Officers were able to share their experiences of the 4DW on the staff intranet, with these comments being captured, and members of the public were able to submit comment on the 4DW trial through the Council’s website.

·       The Bennett Institute were expecting to produce a report at the end of the trial, but there were no plans for reports to be produced in the meantime.

·       With regard to co-working with other 4DW organisations, the Council had received interest from other organisations but had been focused on delivering its own service. The Council had publicly published data and reports on the 4DW but had not been engaging on consultations with other organisations interested in the 4DW.

·       That the ongoing year-long trial referred to the trial running for office-based staff taking place between March 2023-March 2024, which had been agreed following the initial 3-month trial.

·       The definition of hard-to-fill roles was nationally recognised and based off national shortages and/or high levels of specialisation required for specific posts, rather than being based on how long the Council had advertised specific posts.

·       Of the posts covered by agency staff in July 2022, 14 of the roles were considered to be hard-to-fill.

Officers agreed to provide written response to some questions that required further information to answer. The Committee discussed the challenges of accounting for external factors in the data and the reduction of sickness was raised as an example of an area where both the 4DW and other variables could influence the data. Members acknowledged that the data in the report was indicative and that conclusions on the trial in its entirety could not yet be drawn. Comment was made that it was important to capture anecdotes that accompanied the increase in productivity. Some Members felt that the data was rich and that the indications were positive, whilst others held concerns over the data and the principle of the trial.

Members requested that the following be included in the next report:

·       The definition of “hard to fill” roles.

·       Pre-trial recruitment data to be used as a comparison alongside the recruitment numbers in the trial.

·       Details of longstanding vacancies within the Council, even if they did not fall under the definition of “hard to fill”.

·       Information on resident responses to the 4DW.

The Committee noted the report.