H.M. TREASURY

Project 3: Vehicle Inspectorate and Magistrates Courts (SOLUS)

Description

1.                     This project is led by the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) which is working with the Lord Chancellor’s Department (LCD) to develop an electronic interface between VI and the Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. The Vehicle Inspectorate is an Executive Agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and has responsibility for enforcing the law on vehicle safety and environmental standards.

2.                     The VI’s Prosecution and Legal Services (PLS) Team has particular responsibility for handling prosecution cases relating to offences concerning Heavy Goods Vehicles and Passenger Service Vehicles/Public Carrying Vehicles, their operation, the conduct of their drivers and their standard of safety maintenance. Each year it brings between 10,000 and 12,000 prosecution cases to be heard in the Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. Prior to the ISB project, the PLS brought cases to the Courts manually via the postal system – an approach with a variety of drawbacks including time delays, “information exclusion” (e.g. lack of information on forthcoming cases), insecurity of document transfer, higher case processing costs and a constraint on the ability of different agencies to link cases together to give Courts a fuller picture of the offences committed by an operator or individual.

3.                     The SOLUS project involves the development of software (facilitated by appropriate hardware and infrastructure) to enable the electronic transmission of documents and other key communications between the VI and Magistrates Courts. The project is in two phases, the first undertaken solely within VI and the second jointly with the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Phase 1 was concerned with the provision of a modern systems platform in PLS which is integrated internally with its enforcement system and the other office automation systems already in existence within VI. Phase 2 will involve the establishment of an interface between the PLS system and the new Libra system being developed by LCD for the Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. SOLUS – the VI interface – is one of several such interfaces to be established between prosecuting agencies and the Courts (others include the police, DVLA, Vehicle Procedures Fixed Penalty Office, TV Licensing and DSS).

4.                     The objectives of the SOLUS project is set out in the box below, along with the mechanisms by which these objectives are expected to be achieved. The key risk factors identified for the project’s development and implementation are also presented.

Objectives of the SOLUS project

Overall objective:

n to improve VI’s efficiency and effectiveness

Supplementary objectives:

n Improve efficiencies in the justice system

n Reduce administration and resource costs

n Improve communication and access to VI’s and partners’ information in line with corporate and government aims

Mechanisms to achieve objective:

n Enabling the immediate transmission of information using a single pro-forma agreed with the courts

n Reducing the likelihood of Courts refusing to take forward VI cases for procedural failings

n Enabling courts to respond electronically with case dates and summonses

n Reducing errors in duplication of information from one document to another

n Preventing the loss of documents en route

n Enabling VI to respond more quickly to defendants setting out the details of the offence concerned and allowing more time for preparation of the defence in line with Government initiatives on natural justice

n Enabling VI to schedule cases cost-effectively and to liaise with other Agencies to group offences committed by an individual/operator and so ensure that the level of the fine levied is commensurate and to make better use of the legal resources employed on these cases

n Results of cases to be automatically transmitted by the Courts to VI for: analysis; identification of Courts where fines fail to recognise the seriousness of certain offences; transmission to Traffic Commissioners for use in operator licensing activities

Key risks

n Limited staff resources (medium, manageable, risk); timetable – risk of losing synchronisation with LCD Libra project (low risk, provided Phase 1 on time); cost over-runs (higher risk); risk of interface problems with existing systems (low risk); reconsideration of role of PLS within VI (low risk to project from any change)

Project initiation, design and specification

5.                     Other than staff interchanges between VI and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), VI had no history of partnership working with other public service agencies prior to ISB. It did, however, have a number of project concepts, including an idea for a project similar to this one. In the mid 1990s the Prosecution and Legal Services arm of VI was looking closely at its own internal business processes to prepare a business case as part of a market testing exercise. It seemed clear that an electronic link between VI and the Magistrates Courts could generate efficiency savings as well as provide a more effective service to defendants and the Courts. VI made some early enquiries to HM Treasury’s Solicitors Office, and while it found some interest in the idea of an electronic interface, the Magistrates Courts were operating multiple IT systems which made a meaningful electronic link impossible at that stage.

6.                     The opportunity to implement the project came through the decision by the Lord Chancellor’s Department to take forward the “Libra” project which will establish a national case-handling, financial management and office automation IT infrastructure in all Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. The Libra project, which is being undertaken through a PFI contract with ICL, also provides for a series of interfaces between the Courts and prosecuting agencies.

7.                     VI PLS could see the opportunity to establishing one of the planned interfaces with Libra which would help to secure efficiency savings for VI, as well as more effective case handling and more preparation time for defendants. However, it first needed to get its own information systems in place, and PLS was some way down the list of priorities for IT modernisation within VI. This is why the project was undertaken in two stages – the first allowing PLS to get its own IS platform in place, and the second to secure the interface with the Courts.

8.                     The anticipated costs of the project at the bid stage are set out in Table 1. These exclude any costs borne by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on the interface between VI and Libra, as these were not separately identified in the business cases for Libra or SOLUS.

Table 1: Project costs and ISB funding
	Total bid cost (Łk)	ISB funding (Łk)
Capital costs, including: - Dedicated server - 7 routers - installation of routers and ISDN line at PLS and 6 hub court sites - software development	Ł72,620	Ł54,000 (74.4%)
Revenue costs, including: - communications link between PLS and server - annual router and server running cost - support and maintenance at PLS and six hub court sites - system support - call charges for ISDN line and other line rental	Ł50,820 pa for 1 year	Ł38,000 (74.77%)
TOTAL	Ł123,440	Ł92,000 (74.5%)

9. The anticipated benefits of the SOLUS project are set out in the box below. They include substantial cost-savings to VI as well as benefits to the public and defendants. The benefits to the Magistrates Courts are shown in qualitative terms. They were not quantified in the SOLUS bid document and the Lord Chancellor’s Department informed us that the benefits were not separately identified in the Libra business case.

Potential benefits of the SOLUS project

Cost savings to VI:

n Savings in VI consumables (Ł20,000 pa)

n VI staff cost savings (Ł56,000 pa)

n VI staff travel and subsistence cost savings (Ł15,600 pa)

n Legal cost savings (Ł10,000 pa)

n Additional fine income (Ł268,832 pa)*

n Combined case handling – multi-agency (Ł32,000 pa)*

Anticipated benefits to Magistrates Courts:

n More efficient scheduling of Court hearings *

n Reduction in postage and telephone costs *

n Improved dissemination of Court case results

* Note: these quantifiable cost savings were not included in VI’s economic appraisal

Potential benefits of the SOLUS project (continued)

Qualitative benefits:

n Earlier notification of Court hearings to defendants

n Successful prosecution of a larger number of offences with penalties which accurately reflect the seriousness of the offence

n Improved road safety, through taking more effective action against offenders

10. The Expression of Interest and full bid for ISB Round 1 funding were prepared by two staff from VI PLS. Within the two to three weeks available to get the bid and associated business case prepared there was only limited (telephone) contact with the Lord Chancellor’s Department to confirm that Libra was going ahead, that it included scope for interfaces between the Magistrates Courts and prosecuting agencies, and that LCD would be happy for VI to submit an ISB relating to its interface with Libra. No other consultation within or outside VI PLS was possible in the timescale. VI did not receive any direct feedback from HMT on the bid and our review of HMT’s project files does not suggest that any feedback was made to DETR’s Finance team (VI’s sponsoring department) in relation to the bid.

11. As an ISB Round 1 “pioneer”, VI was somewhat uncertain as to what projects would successfully meet HMT’s ISB selection criteria. In line with many other Round 1 project partners, VI’s other main comment about the bidding process related to the limited timescale for bid preparation. Concern was expressed that this penalised those organisations which did not have fully worked-up project cases ready for submission. The point was made that had the SOLUS project been any more complicated, a bid could probably not have been prepared in time.

Management of the project

12.                  Because Phase 1 of the project was purely concerned with VI’s own information systems there was no separate Project Board for SOLUS. Instead, the project manager reported regularly to VI’s Project Management Board on overall progress with the project, including reasons for any slippage, cost-overruns, revised scheduling and risks. This forum, chaired by VI’s Finance Director and with senior IT representation, was described as challenging but extremely valuable in steering Phase 1 of the project to successful completion. The ongoing management of the project was led by a project manager at PLS and an IT project manager. They met informally every month with a manager from VI’s Systems Development Team (“Status Review Meetings”) and covered the same key planning and reporting items, but in more detail.

13.                  Unlike many other ISB projects, this one followed a very different project management methodology known as DSDM (Dynamic Systems Development Model), which provided for more flexibility in the testing and implementation of parallel tasks and more user involvement in design and testing than the traditional PRINCE 2 method. The SOLUS project was the first time that DSDM had been used in VI and in piloting its use, VI commissioned consultancy support which was paid for from a corporate budget. Although there were some initial delays in getting the DSDM approach in place, it was considered to have been more appropriate for this type of small IT project than PRINCE. The latter was considered to be overly formal and sequential, with insufficient flexibility to design, test and implement different tasks in parallel.

14.                  Although the DSDM project management methodology was considered a success and the implementation of Phase 1 was completed on time, there was some obvious displacement of resource during the systems development and testing stages.   A key lesson identified by VI from their experience on this project is that dedicated project management is likely to be more cost-effective than an approach which involves existing managers taking on special initiatives without any back-filling of resources. The result in this case was that priority and focus was only achieved at some cost to the day to day operation of the PLS department in Cambridge.

15.                  Phase 2 will require the VI to work much more closely with LCD to specify and then implement the interface between VI and the Magistrates Courts. VI and LCD are both aware that they need to build their relationship quickly and solidly from now on – acknowledging that even though it may not have been technically necessary to have a regular dialogue before now, it would have helped to build the relationship and get Phase 2 off to a faster start.

16.                  An initial workshop took place in January to begin the discussion about the Libra/SOLUS interface and regular dialogue is planned from now on to ensure that there is a clear and agreed work-programme for Phase 2 of the ISB project within the on-going development of Libra. The intention is to establish a Project Board which will involve VI’s PLS project manager, the Libra Project Co-ordinator, DVL, Traffic Area Offices, IBIS, VI’s Head of Prosecution and Legal Services, an internal (VI) representative, and the Libra contractor (ICL). Precise representation on, and working methods for, this Project Board were not established when we undertook the consultations, but we know that there are plans to establish joint project management structures to ensure that the interface development and implementation proceeds smoothly.

Project outcomes, including contingency and monitoring

17.                  The outcome of the project so far is the successful implementation of Phase 1, involving a new software system and the necessary hardware to run it at both of PLS’s sites (Cambridge and Bristol). In terms of project costs, it has been difficult to track anything other than the key capital items, and one consultee described the accounting of ISB funding within VI as a “black hole”. However, it is clear that the Phase 1 capital costs alone have already over-run by Ł61,580, or 85%. VI made it clear in the bid document that the budget proposals were based on cost estimates so it is difficult to say how far the difference (which VI is covering through its own budget) is due to the initial uncertainty about costs versus poor cost control. A key lesson learned by VI from SOLUS to date is the need to have a project cost code in place from day one. One has now been introduced for Phase 2 of the project.

18.                  VI feel confident that the costs of Phase 2 will be lower than those estimated in the bid, because it will be able to use its own in-house systems team to work on the VI side of the interface (rather than using VI’s normal contractor, EDS).

19.                  By contrast to the difficulties surrounding expenditure monitoring, there was very tight control of scheduling and risk assessment. A formal risk management procedure was integrated into the project management system, which involved the preparation of a regular Development Risk Analysis Report to be tabled at each Status Review Meeting. These key features of an effective project management system led to the on-time delivery of the Phase 1 system in October 1999, with very few teething problems in its operation since then.

20.                  When we undertook the consultations in February 2000, no monitoring plan had yet been established for Phase 2, but we were told that this was planned. In addition to expenditure monitoring, which will address the weaknesses identified in Phase 1, key baseline and monitoring data is likely to be drawn from VI’s own timesheets and other management information on case handling, and VI has already given some thought as to how non-VI benefits might be measured (e.g. through user surveys with traffic examiners, defendants and Courts).

21.                  The latest timescale for Phase 2 of the project is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Revised milestones for Phase 2: SOLUS/LIBRA
Specification for VI/Libra interface agreed	End March 2000
VI/Libra interface developed	March 2001
VI/Libra interface implemented	June/July 2001

22. HMT’s own approach to monitoring was considered to be too lax. Although the project was awarded ISB funding in January 1999, it VI did not submit its Implementation Plan for SOLUS until December 1999 – with apparently little or no chasing by HMT for either the Implementation Plan or the October 1999 Progress Report in the intervening period. In addition to a more pro-active approach on ISB programme monitoring, VI suggested that there should be more structured data capture on costs and benefits in the Progress Report. We would concur with both points.

Additionality, longer term effects and value for money

23.                  The additionality of ISB funding was claimed to be high but partial, in the sense that the project would have been less likely to proceed in full without ISB support. The likelihood that the project would have proceeded as planned without ISB support was assessed as less than 25% on two grounds. First, VI might have seen the interface with the Magistrates Courts as a non-essential bonus, given that it had retained PLS after market testing on the basis of “old technology” and PLS was performing its functions well. Second, VI’s own roadside enforcement activity has become more visible over the same timescale, which – through a deterrent effect - may reduce the number of cases being prosecuted by VI and thus reduce the imperative to progress the project. These arguments are compelling. However, it seems equally likely, in our view, that the costs incurred on Phase 1 of the project would have been essential in due course (given the need to integrate PLS with the rest of VI’s mainstream office systems), irrespective of the decision to interface with Libra. Moreover, given the momentum behind Libra, and the fact that interfaces with other prosecuting agencies are being developed in tranches, if costs were a concern VI might also have bought itself some time by waiting for the first round of Libra interfaces with other agencies to proceed and be evaluated before assessing the costs and benefits of committing itself.

24.                  Our own assessment is that the Phase 1 and 2 projects were probably accelerated by between two and three years as a result of ISB. However, the key contribution which ISB did make was to enable VI to become one of the first agencies to interface with Libra. Given VI’s very limited track record in partnership work and the step change which the interface will make in terms of information and communications technology in PLS, the justification for ISB funding seems perfectly reasonable.

25.                  The longer-term future of the project seems secure. Phase 1 is already “mainstreamed” within PLS’s day to day activity. It has replaced its earlier internal systems with a modern information system which, as noted above, is working well. If successful, the implementation of the interface with Libra should also become a permanent fixture, but VI consultees felt that it could well open further doors for more partnership working with other prosecutors, especially if they all have the same core interface features. Further partnership work – for example with DVLA – could lead to further enforcement action, or higher fines levied, against rogue HGV/PSV operators.

26.                  It is still too early to assess the value for money of the project, because the costs are front-end loaded and the real benefits of the project will not materialise until 2001/2. However, both VI and LCD are hopeful that SOLUS and the Libra interfaces will be cost-effective.

Administrative and accountability issues

27. We have already noted the difficulties surrounding monitoring of expenditure on the ISB project and the key lesson which emerged in terms of project coding. There have been no other difficulties with the accountability of the project so far, because Phase 1 was essentially an internal VI project. The expectation is that accountability is not likely to be an issue for Phase 2 because it looks as if it will be possible for LCD and VI to draw an imaginary “line in the ether” – with each organisation meeting the costs of hardware and communications up to that line. There is no issue of either organisation incurring costs or claiming benefits beyond their own sphere of operation – that point is perfectly clear in the bid document and was made to us by both VI and LCD during the round of consultations.

Conclusions

28. This project is somewhat unusual in ISB terms because it has involved an internal project within one agency to be followed by a joint project later. The two phases are clearly related, with the internal platform in Phase 1 providing the essential infrastructure for the interface in Phase 2. On the basis of Phase 1, it would be difficult to argue that there has been a genuine partnership between VI and LCD. LCD were not involved in the ISB bidding process (other than agreeing, by telephone, to be involved in Phase 2), nor was there substantive interchange between the VI and LCD during Phase 1. As we discussed above, that has not been particularly important up to now. However, a good working relationship will be critical, if the Libra-VI interface is to be effective in achieving the impressive array of potential benefits set out in the bid document.

29. The SOLUS project, once implemented, will lead to significant cost-savings for the VI’s Prosecution and Legal Services Team in their dealings with the Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. It is also likely to generate some, unquantified, efficiency savings for the Courts, as well as less tangible but equally important benefits in terms of justice and a deterrent effect on future offenders if fines increase as a result of more information on the offences carried out by specific operators or individuals. Taking the programme title literally, therefore, this is a genuine “invest to save” project and one which should demonstrate the real value of effective electronic government. Our only concern is that VI puts in place the appropriate expenditure and output monitoring systems to ensure that the project can be readily monitored and evaluated in the future.