Your Commissioner - Your Voice

Commissioner Zoë can ask questions on your behalf in her Online Public Meeting with the Chief Constable or Chief Fire Officer. Ask your question and find out more.

009/2013 – Request for approval for NYP to move to a joint computerised fleet management system with Humberside Police and South Yorkshire Police – 24 January 2013

Executive Summary and recommendation:

NYP currently utilise a computerised fleet management system called Tranman supplied by CIVICA. HSP wish to purchase the same Tranman system and SYP, who already use an older version of Tranman wish to upgrade to the current NYP version as it has advanced functionality over their current system. It was decided at the Regional Fleet Board that this was the ideal time to have one hosted system between the 3 forces that would have the same functionality, this would bring about cost savings in the short and long term. NYP would host this system and receive an income generation stream from HSP & SYP for this service.

It is recommended that that approval be granted to move to a joint system and also for NYP to host the system

FINANCE SUMMARY

NYP share of Capital cost of Advanced E-mail module £1,200

Additional annual maintenance costs – revenue £200

Note: Costs are estimated using the NRE regional split % of total cost.

Intial ISD capital for hosting (Recharged to SYP & HSP) £64,861. Average revenue Income to NYP for hosting £18,000 pa of which approx £12,000 is staff support costs and the balance warranty’s/licences.

Chief Officer of Resources decision

Approved

Signature Joanna Carter Date 24 January 2013

Title: Chief Officer of Resources


Part 1 – Unrestricted facts and advice to the PCC

Introduction and background

North Yorkshire Police (NYP) Introduced a new computerised fleet management system named ‘Tranman’ supplied by CIVICA in June 2010. Humberside Police (HSP) wish to purchase the same Tranman system and South Yorkshire Police (SYP), who already use an older version of Tranman wish to upgrade to the current NYP version as it has advanced functionality over their current system. It was decided at the Regional Fleet Board that this was the ideal time to have one hosted system between the 3 forces that would have the same functionality, this would bring about cost savings in the short and long term.

As NYP have the most advanced system it was decided that SYP & HSP should move to the system used by NYP. There are substanstial capital and revenue costs involved in this project, however as NYP already have their majority of the new system’s functionality there is only limited costs implications for NYP. The costs for NYP are only in relation to one element of functionality of the system that NYP do not currently have which is a module called Advanced E-mail. This module allows customers (Internal & external) to be e-mailed directly from the computerised system upon and event taking place e.g.: When a Vehicle Technician completes a workshop job the system would automatically e-mail the customer to inform them their vehicle is ready for collection. This would improve customer service and reduce the time taken to telephone customers and also vehicle down time.

The original plan was for the system supplier (CIVICA) to host the system for the region. However this was challenged at the Regional Fleet Board and an internal cost of hosting the system was provided by NYP. NYP would host this system and receive an income generation stream from HSP & SYP for this service. The cost saving over NYP hosting the system to the original proposal is approx £135,000 over five years, therefore the current proposal is for NYP to host the regional system.

The development of a joint system means that any future changes/enhancements to the system required would need to be agreed by the three forces, but does also means that any costs involved would be shared by the three forces.

Matters for consideration

Approval for NYP to move to a joint computerised fleet management system with HSP & SYP

Approval for NYP to host the regional computerised fleet system on behalf of the three forces.

Other options considered, if any

Going out to tender for new system provider was considered to ensure a competitive quote, however as NYP had recently carried out this exercise on the open market it was considered that the current system operated by NYP would offer best value.

Contribution to Police and Crime Plan outcomes

Continuity of policing service delivery in North Yorkshire and the City of York by ensuring that officers have a cost effective and efficient fleet support service.

Consultations carried out

Chief Finance Officers of NYP, SYP & HSP

Heads of Fleet of NYP, SYP & HSP

Financial Implications/Value for money

A breakdown of the additonal costs for NYP is provided below:

NYP share of Capital cost of Advanced E-mail module £1,200

Additional annual maintenance costs – revenue £200

Note: Costs are estimated using the NRE regional split % of total cost. The current annual licence fee for NYP is £6,274 PA

Intial ISD capital for hosting (Recharged to SYP & HSP) £64,861,000

Average revenue Income to NYP for hosting £18,000 pa of which approx £12,000 is staff support costs and the balance warranty’s/licences etc

Legal Implications

A detailed SLA is being drawn up by NYP ISD department to cover hosting the system on behalf of the three forces. This will be passed to the Legal department for comment/approval.

Equality Implications

No equality implications are perceived

 

Tick to confirm statement (√)
Director/Chief Officer COR Carter has reviewed the request and is satisfied that it is correct and consistent with the NYPCC’s plans and priorities.     √
Legal AdviceLegal advice has been sought on this proposal and is considered not to expose the PCC to risk of legal challenge or such risk is outlined in Part 1 or Part 2 of this Notice.     √
Financial AdviceThe CC CFO has been consulted on this proposal, for which budgetary provision already exists or is to be made in accordance with Part 1 or Part 2 of this Notice.     √
Equalities AdviceAn assessment has been made of the equality impact of this proposal. Either there is considered to be minimal impact or the impact is outlined in Part1 or Part2 of this Notice.     √
I confirm that all the above advice has been sought and received and I am satisfied that this is an appropriate request to be submitted for a decisionSignature Date
Published on