Alternatives to OLM

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Enfield Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Enfield Council,

With regard to the Council’s response to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
I have some follow-up questions.

Q1:
The Council’s report to Members contained the following section:

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Do nothing stay with existing OLM on premise solution and purchase/develop the additional functionality required.
2. Move to a hosted/managed service provided by OLM and purchase/develop the additional functionality required.
It is noteworthy that the only options presented to Members were OLM-based.
The report to Members stated “An evaluation of the leading systems in the market place (Microsoft and Careworks) was undertaken” Furthermore, Careworks was the only other supplier named in Part 2 of the report.

7.4.1 of the report states the following:
“The risk of direct award is that by not competing the requirement it is difficult to demonstrate that the price is competitive and also that the product is the best solution”.
8 – “Key Risks” – of the report states:
“The risks in detailed in 7.4.1 have been mitigated by undertaking market testing as detailed in the Part 2 report”.
Yet there was no credible market testing in Part 2 of the report – Careworks was the only supplier considered, and – as noted below – they have negligible market share.

Microsoft’s market share is zero. Careworks have a market share of 3% in England or 6% in the UK.

Two other suppliers – Liquidlogic and Corelogic – have 40% and 30% market share respectively. These suppliers do not feature in your market evaluation. Please explain why.

Who provided the statement that Microsoft and Careworks provide the leading systems in the market place? Please state whether the source of this suggestion was internal ie a member of staff, or an external agency eg OLM.

Q2: The same report to Members contained the following statement:
“To note that in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, a parent company guarantee shall be provided by OLM’s parent company, OLM Group Limited”
Could you explain why a parent company guarantee was considered necessary?

Q3: One of my previous questions, and the Council’s response:
“ If we decide to keep it longer than 5 years, how much will it cost in year 6?
This is not known at this time”
Could the Council review this response, please? IT systems are often in place for 10 years+. It seems improbable that the contract does not include an agreed annual charge at the end of the contract.

Q4: Another question in the previous FOI was:
“Which councils provided reference sites for this system?
Although Eclipse is live for Children’s services it is not yet live for Adults – LB Enfield will be the first Council to go live with Adults.
Bromley was the main reference site for Mylife. Bromley and Brighton were the reference sites for Guardian”

I’m sorry, you appear to have misunderstood the question. First of all, Eclipse is not live anywhere for children’s social care, according to the OLM website. It is live in early help at Wolverhampton.

Secondly, MyLife and Guardian are irrelevant – these are legacy systems from OLM which pre-date Eclipse, and are built on separate software platforms.

If there were no reference sites for Eclipse, please state this, for the avoidance of doubt.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Thank you for your email.

We will respond as soon as possible.

Regards,

Complaints and Access to Information Team,
Enfield Council.

[1]Campaign

[2]Facebook[3]Follow us on Facebook [4]Twitter[5]Twitter
[6]Enfield[7]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. http://new.enfield.gov.uk/connected
2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
4. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
5. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
6. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
7. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Proctor,

Thank you for your email.

Please note that we have logged a new FOI request for your follow up questions and will respond to you in due course.

The reference number for the new request is above, crm foi 3491

Many thanks,

Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to Information Officer
Complaints & Access to Information Team

Phone: 020 8379 2808
Email: [email address]
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk

Enfield Connected puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your payments
and saves you time – to set up your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected

show quoted sections

Dear complaintsandinformation,

This FOI is significantly overdue - it is 2 months since I sent my follow-up questions.

Your reference is crm foi 3491

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

Dear Enfield Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Enfield Council's handling of my FOI request 'Alternatives to OLM'.

This request is now 4 months old, despite reminders from me.
I request an internal review so that I can then either receive the information requested, or go to the ICO for an external audit of your response (or lack of response).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Mr Proctor,

 

Please find below additional comments in bold in relation to your request.

 

With regard to the Council’s response to
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

I have some follow-up questions.

 

Q1:

The Council’s report to Members contained the following section:

 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED:

1. Do nothing stay with existing OLM on premise solution and
purchase/develop the additional functionality required.

2. Move to a hosted/managed service provided by OLM and purchase/develop
the additional functionality required.

It is noteworthy that the only options presented to Members were
OLM-based.

The report to Members stated “An evaluation of the leading systems in the
market place (Microsoft and Careworks) was undertaken” Furthermore,
Careworks was the only other supplier named in Part 2 of the report.

 

7.4.1 of the report states the following:

“The risk of direct award is that by not competing the requirement it is
difficult to demonstrate that the price is competitive and also that the
product is the best solution”.

8 – “Key Risks” – of the report states:

“The risks in detailed in 7.4.1 have been mitigated by undertaking market
testing as detailed in the Part 2 report”.

Yet there was no credible market testing in Part 2 of the report –
Careworks was the only supplier considered, and – as noted below – they
have negligible market share. 

 

Microsoft’s market share is zero. Careworks have a market share of 3% in
England or 6% in the UK.

 

Two other suppliers – Liquidlogic and Corelogic – have 40% and 30% market
share respectively. These suppliers do not feature in your market
evaluation. Please explain why.

Enfield ICT’s model is to reduce the number of systems and suppliers it
uses in order to develop and take advantage of working in partnership
arrangements with key partners.  OLM were already providing a software
solution  for this service to Enfield and this provided us with the
opportunity to become a development partner with OLM.

 

Who provided the statement that Microsoft and Careworks provide the
leading systems in the market place? Please state whether the source of
this suggestion was internal ie a member of staff, or an external agency
eg OLM.

Internal

 

Q2: The same report to Members contained the following statement:

“To note that in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, a
parent company guarantee shall be provided by OLM’s parent company, OLM
Group Limited”

Could you explain why a parent company guarantee was considered necessary?

 

The Council's Contract Procedure Rules outline circumstances where a
Parent Company Guarantee should be considered as a form of security from
contractors.

 

Q3: One of my previous questions, and the Council’s response:

“ If we decide to keep it longer than 5 years, how much will it cost in
year 6?

This is not known at this time”

Could the Council review this response, please? IT systems are often in
place for 10 years+. It seems improbable that the contract does not
include an agreed annual charge at the end of the contract.

 

A decision will be taken nearer the time of renewal,  figure not known at
this stage.

 

Q4: Another question in the previous FOI was:

“Which councils provided reference sites for this system?

Although Eclipse is live for Children’s services it is not yet live for
Adults – LB Enfield will be the first Council to go live with Adults.

Bromley was the main reference site for Mylife. Bromley and Brighton were
the reference sites for Guardian”

 

I’m sorry, you appear to have misunderstood the question. First of all,
Eclipse is not live anywhere for children’s social care, according to the
OLM website. It is live in early help at Wolverhampton.

 

Secondly, MyLife and Guardian are irrelevant – these are legacy systems
from OLM which pre-date Eclipse, and are built on separate software
platforms.

 

If there were no reference sites for Eclipse, please state this, for the
avoidance of doubt.

No reference Sites - solution to be developed for Adult Social Care.

 

If you are remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have
the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should
be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to
your original letter and should be addressed to:

 

Complaints and Access to Information Team

Email – [1][Enfield Council request email]

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

 

Regards,

 

 

Daniel Ellis

Complaints & Access to Information Officer

Complaints & Access to Information Team

London Borough of Enfield

 

Phone: 020 8379 2808

Email: [email address]

Website: www.enfield.gov.uk

 

Enfield Connected puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your
payments

and saves you time – to set up your account today go to
www.enfield.gov.uk/connected

 

show quoted sections

Dear complaintsandinformation,

Thank you for responding – several months late. I note that you have not conducted the internal review which I requested.

Q1: You state: “Enfield ICT’s model is to reduce the number of systems and suppliers it uses in order to develop and take advantage of working in partnership arrangements with key partners. OLM were already providing a software solution for this service to Enfield and this provided us with the opportunity to become a development partner with OLM”
I don’t see how this achieves your objective of reducing the number of systems and suppliers. It would have been logical either to use OLM for children’s and adult social care, or to use Liquidlogic for both services. The approach you have taken keeps the Council with two suppliers.
You also state that the information about Careworks and Microsoft being the leading suppliers in the sector came from within the Council. This person’s advice was so inaccurate that it calls into question their competence. Still, I am reassured that the information did not come from OLM, which would have suggested an unhealthy relationship with a supplier.

Q2: You have not answered the question. Your response is circular. Please state the specific circumstances which triggered the requirement for a parent company guarantee. I would remind you that the Council has been requested to answer this question since January – you are already in breach of the legislation

Q3: I am simply agog that the council has not negotiated pricing to apply at the end of the current contract term. I trust that you will resolve this quickly.

Q4: Thank you for clarifying. The Council took the decision without any reference sites. I have to say, I’m beyond disappointed that you have paid so significantly over the odds to act as a development partner for a system which appears not to be live anywhere. I would remind the Council that this is public money - if IT companies want experimental partners, let THEM foot the bill - rather than the taxpayer.

I would be grateful for a comprehensive response to Q2 with no further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Dear Mr Proctor

 

I write to update regarding the progress of your request for an internal
review in relation to FOI 3491.

 

I am sorry for the delay in contact. It is an extremely busy period for my
team and we are working hard to address the high volume of contact with
limited resources available. I have also been away on various leave which
has contributed to the delay. Apologies again that it has taken longer
than usual to complete your response and your patience during this time
has been greatly appreciated.

 

An officer is currently dealing with your request and we are expecting
your response to be completed shortly. I am monitoring progress and should
your case still be outstanding next week, I will then contact you to
provide a further update.

 

Kind regards

 

Dionne Grant

Complaints and Access to Information Manager (Statutory and Corporate)

Enfield Council

Civic Centre

Silver Street, Enfield

EN1 3XA

 

[1]Campaign

[2]Facebook[3]Follow us on Facebook [4]Twitter[5]Twitter
[6]Enfield[7]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/...
2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
4. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
5. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
6. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
7. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

Dear complaintsandinformation,

Thank you for your response. I look forward to receiving your reply. I do appreciate the time which these responses can take, and really do appreciate your help.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Dear Mr Proctor

 

I am sorry matters are still ongoing. We are now anticipating completion
of your response within a week. Should there be any further issues
arising, I will contact you again on 15 October.

 

Many thanks for your continued patience.

 

Kind regards

Dionne Grant

 

From: complaintsandinformation
Sent: 25 September 2018 12:58
To: [FOI #460983 email]
Subject: Update regarding internal review request - FOI 3491

 

Dear Mr Proctor

 

I write to update regarding the progress of your request for an internal
review in relation to FOI 3491.

 

I am sorry for the delay in contact. It is an extremely busy period for my
team and we are working hard to address the high volume of contact with
limited resources available. I have also been away on various leave which
has contributed to the delay. Apologies again that it has taken longer
than usual to complete your response and your patience during this time
has been greatly appreciated.

 

An officer is currently dealing with your request and we are expecting
your response to be completed shortly. I am monitoring progress and should
your case still be outstanding next week, I will then contact you to
provide a further update.

 

Kind regards

 

Dionne Grant

Complaints and Access to Information Manager (Statutory and Corporate)

Enfield Council

Civic Centre

Silver Street, Enfield

EN1 3XA

 

[1]Campaign

[2]Facebook[3]Follow us on Facebook [4]Twitter[5]Twitter
[6]Enfield[7]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/...
2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
4. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
5. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
6. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
7. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Proctor

 

Please find attached response to your internal review. Apologies again for
the delay.

 

Kind regards

 

Dionne Grant

Complaints and Access to Information Manager (Statutory and Corporate)

Enfield Council

Civic Centre

Silver Street, Enfield

EN1 3XA

 

 

[1]Campaign

[2]Facebook[3]Follow us on Facebook [4]Twitter[5]Twitter
[6]Enfield[7]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/...
2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
4. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
5. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
6. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
7. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

Dear complaintsandinformation,

Thank you for your response.

I have to say that I am unhappy with this. I requested an internal review because your original response was circular. The response which the internal review has elicited is almost equally circular, and provides virtually no information.

Your response is as follows:

"In your original FOI request of 30th January 2018, your question of “could you explain
why a parent company guarantee was considered necessary?” was responded to by
the Council confirming “the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules outline circumstances
where a parent company guarantee should be considered”.

It seems you were not satisfied with this response and so in your e-mail of 19th May
2018 you are seeking further clarification to your original question and asking for the
specific circumstances which triggered the requirement for a parent company
guarantee in the OLM case.

Findings

The Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) state the specific circumstances that
security is required from the contracting company. As you are aware the value of this
contract is £1,682,490 over the 5-year period, this amount has triggered the need to
request security from a contractor under rule 1.18.1 of the CPR"

Could I ask you to provide a copy of the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) please? Or at least rule 1.18.1?

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Proctor,

 

Thank you for making a request for information to the London Borough of
Enfield.

 

We are aiming to respond to your request within 20 working days and will
let you know if we hold the information you requested and whether or not
we can release it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

We are now making an initial assessment of your request and we will
contact you if any clarification is needed.

 

If you have any queries regarding your request, please contact us at
[1][Enfield Council request email] quoting your reference CRM FOI
4801

 

Regards,

 

Theresa Willard

Complaints and Access to Information Coordinator- Gateway Services

Finance, Resources and Customer Services

Enfield Council

Thomas Hardy House

39 London Road

Enfield

EN2 6DS

 

Email: [2][email address]

 

‘Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole borough fairly,
delivering excellent services and building strong communities.’

 

[3]Signature

 

[4]Campaign

[5]Facebook[6]Follow us on Facebook [7]Twitter[8]Twitter
[9]Enfield[10]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Enfield Council request email]
2. mailto:[email address]
4. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/...
5. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
6. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
7. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
8. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
9. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
10. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org