/ Business Case / Document Ref
PF02
Annex 2
Title & Ref. / CM04 - Corporate CRM Solution
Council or SIP Ref. / Corporate Improvement Programme ( SIP result 3)
Prepared by / Kevin Martin
Version & Date / Version 1 – 14th September 2010
Budget / Maximum £738k

IWHAT IS THE PROJECT GOING TO DO?

General comment: As this is going to members, rather than officers we’ll need to make sure language is very real and practical. I think it would benefit from some more concrete examples and benefits specifically from CRM system, rather than the wider customer management work for clarity. Also I think we can reduce some of the duplication with CM business case by summarising some sections as noted, especially as they have just reviewed CM business case at previous meeting so should be fresh. Comments on specifics follow….

  1. Objective
  2. The objective is to have in placedeliver a customer enquiry tracking and management systemCRM solution that is capable of delivering the requirements of the Customer Management programme across all services and access channels (web, text, face to face, phone, etc)the appropriate delivery channels to, improveing customer choice and responsiveness and realiseing cash savings.
  3. This project will identify, then procure and implement, the most appropriate Corporate CRM system for Fife Council and carry out its procurement and implementation. It will also define which functionality should be implemented and in what order.
  1. Scope
  2. Assessment of theAll options to provide the most appropriatea CRM system for Fife Council have been considered (see section III). given current needs.
  3. Th eproject will consider Tthe best procurement and implementation of any new system and any associated hardware and software, to include:
  4. Implementation of the chosen functionality in accordance with the programme plan.
  5. The integration of the existing in-house CRM, CENTRIS, with any new system, if applicable.
  6. A plan for the migration of CENTRIS and FLP functionality to the new system and the decommissioning of these, if applicable.
  7. A decision on the future of the Corporate Data Hub (the source of people and property data for CENTRIS and other systems).
  8. Training of those who will administer and develop the new system.
  9. Training of users on any new system.
  10. The solution will support improved processes on an end to end basis; from customer contact, through back office support to front line service delivery. It will therefore involve all relevant services across the Council and increase our ability to fully resolve queries at first point of contact.
  11. All staff whether directly in contact with customers or delivering supporting processes will therefore be in scope. Specific processes and services will nevertheless be targeted on a phased basis.
  1. Success factors
  2. The implementation of a corporate CRM solution that: (not sure about this list – it’s slightly different from what we then say in 4.4. Think this bit needs cut down.
  • Improves customer satisfaction, in particular so we can deliver more at first point of contact, increase speed of delivery, provide better information to customers, and keep customers up to date on progress of their enquiry.
  • Delivers cash savings.
  • Can support improved service delivery over all appropriate channels.
  • Is capable of delivering the requirements of the Customer Management programme across the appropriate delivery channels.

Helps deliver cash savings and improved customer choice and responsiveness.

  • Reduces the reliance on IT Services to deliver core functionality and lowers the burden on limited ICT resources.
  • Enables new functionality to be delivered in shorter timescales.
  • Channels customers to lower cost, non-mediated channels.
  • Reduces call duration.
  • Reducesavoidable contacts.

Empowers Customer Service Representatives to be more productive through access to expert knowledge. (seems a bit specific to contact centre..)

Meets or exceeds customers’ expectations and leads to improved SLA compliance.

  • Simplifies Allows customer -facing staff to deal with enquiries by accessing fewer ’s use of Council systems.
  • The main indications of success will be:
  • Has customer service improved or been maintained?

Do we have more relevant information and services available online?

  • Have delivery costs been reduced?

3.3Other indicators will include:

Are customer enquiries being resolved more quickly?

Are customers using cheaper methods of contact (Online or contact centre)?

Are we delivering more transactions electronically?

3.4A plan which shows how the chosen solution will be developed in line with the Customer Management Strategy.

IIWHY SHOULD WE DO IT

  1. Background Think this section needs tightened as it jumps about a bit between reasons for CRM, and options appraised to achieve that. Reorder to say more sharply
    ~ here’s why we’re doing it: (1) CM strategy context i.e. 4.1, 4.2, and a 1 para summary of section 5 – don’t need all the detail (2) that we need a single system to achieve changes we need to make 3) can deliver significant cost savings, refer here h
    ~
  2. The Customer Management Programme outlines a strategy for the next three year period to deliver significant improvements and efficiencies in how the Council interacts with its customers. This will be achieved by implementing improvements which embed the following principles across the Council.
  3. Delivery of services to customers as one Council, not as individual Services. All Council contact points will provide the same basic range of services, with additional services available from main contact points in each area.
  4. Delivery of services using generic processes to handle an enquiry, process a request, make an appointment/booking, assess and decide, deal with workforce planning and workforce scheduling. The same process will be used whether customers contact us by phone, over the internet, or face to face.
  5. Shift transactions and queries to lower cost channels such as Fife Direct or the phone/contact centre wherever possible. In particular high volume and/or low complexity phone queries will be routed through the contact centre, so the council has fewer telephone numbers.
  6. we also manage enquiries and information so we can learn from our customers' experiences across the Council
  7. Last year’sThe 2009 AnnualcCustomer Rreport noted that we wouldthe Council needed to extend the use of a single system to improve our ability to track the progress and status of enquiries across a wider range of services. We also needed to better understand the volume, type, and quality of response to customer enquiries across all council services and access channels.
  8. There are potentially significant cost savings to be gained from introducing a new CRM system. It has the potential to remove the need for a number of existing systems, therefore reducing support and maintenance costs. In addition it can cut out many manual processes providing significant opportunities for services to reduce running costs.
  9. The Customer Management programme had raised the issue as to whether theIt is not clear that our current in-house built CRM/customer tracking system (CENTRIS) was the appropriate platform tocan deliver all the functionality required by Custoemr Management the Programme, in particular around the . This issue was raised as there were concerns within POS and ITS regarding the costs and time associated with extending or modifying CENTRIS functions and integrating this with other systems
  10. The first phase of this project was to undertake appraisealto evidence the options to delvier a system for a system which can: see note on 3.1, feels like duplication/another similar, but different list of coutcomes……
  • enable a service to be delivered online, over the phone or face to face using the same system/processes
  • provide access to information and advice on our web site
  • carry out standard processes across a range of services
  • capture transaction performance data (e.g. time to resolve enquiries, end to end delivery times, details of all contact no matter which access channel is used).
  • Options considered were:
  • To keep and further develop our existing in-house system (CENTRIS)
  • To procure a new system via an open tender process
  • To consider the Lagansystem procured by the Scottish Governments’ Improvement Service which 18 other Scottish Council’s already use
  • There are potentially significant cost savings to be gained from introducing a new CRM system. It has the potential to remove the need for a number of existing systems, therefore reducing support and maintenance costs. In addition it can cut out many manual processes providing significant opportunities for services to reduce running costs.
  • We will therefore implement the option which provides the most opportunity to deliver cost-effective improvements to customer service.
  1. Reasons for CRM As spoken – cut and paraphrase into section 4.
  2. 1,392 FTE staff manage customer contact across all access channels and deal with the following processes:

  • handling enquiries
/
  • workforce planning

  • processing requests
/
  • workforce scheduling

  • appointment taking and booking
/
  • assessing and deciding on service eligibility and subsequent fulfilment of those requests

5.2The 2009 Annual Customer Report (approved by PFAM 10 September 2009) concluded that residents were generally satisfied with the services provided by the Council and there had been good progress on delivering the customer management priorities. It was noted that to make further improvements in satisfaction levels, the Council needed to focus on:

  • delivering more often at first point of contact
  • speed of delivery
  • providing good information
  • keeping customers up to date on progress
  • Recent diagnostic work also highlighted significant opportunities to reduce avoidable contact, reduce duplication of effort, and make more efficient use of cheaper contact channels (such as the web/phone).
  • Transaction costs vary significantly depending on how customers contact us. It costs a few pence to deliver information/transactions online, a few pounds for the same service on the phone, and tens of pounds for face to face contact.

Access Channel / SOCITIM (Typical costs) / Fife Data (Average Cost per transaction)
Face to Face / £7.81 - £75 / Approx £24 (Local Services)
Telephone / Approx £4 / £2.22 (Contact Centre)
Web / £0.17 / £0.09 (Fife Direct)
Text / £0.04

5.5National research indicates that approximately 80% of customer enquiries received by local authorities are simple queries of a basic level which can be dealt with by providing static information (Varney, D. 2006, “Service transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the taxpayer”, HM Treasury, London). In general customer enquiries can be categorised into 3 broad types as shown in figure 1 (Tier Model):

  • Simple queries and basic enquiries
  • Simple Problems
  • Complex Problems

Figure 1 – Tier Model

5.6This model allows us to categorise enquiries and transactions to identify those which can be delivered through lower cost channels or improved processes, freeing up more of our costly specialist resources for more complex queries or personalised 1:1 support.

5.7An effective CRM solution will enable us to manage transactions more consistently across the Council and allow many of the services delivered to be moved to lower cost channels.

5.8Whilst the project falls under the governance of the Customer Management programme, it has been recognised that there are implications for other major programmes i.e. Mobile and Flexible working and some of its objectives might be met more quickly depending on the choice of CRM. (worth keeping therse two points somewhere)

  1. Summary (good summary! – check back that text before flows in similar way?)
  2. The Corporate CRM Solution project is central to how the Customer Management programme goes forward and how quickly it will start to realise its outcomes and associated benefits.
  3. Of the £5.5m annual savings attributable to customer management improvements, almost 80% of these are estimated to be driven by the development or procurement and implementation of an effective CRM solution, as articulated in the Customer Management business case.
  4. The financial climate that is going to prevail in local government over the next five years makes it vital for the Council to start implementing the changes required to improve customer service delivery, yet do so at a lower cost.
  5. We need to make sure we deliver sustainable services as budgets are reduced, making sure we prioritise services and more expensive forms of customer support to those who need them most.

IIIWHAT ARE THE OPTIONS

Options that have been considered for the corporate CRMcan be summarised as follows:

  1. CENTRIS Option

This option would mean continuing to use CENTRIS (the in-house CRM) as the CRM/customer tracking system to deliver the functionality described in the Customer Management Programme.

7.1Costs

  • High level estimates were provided by IT Services for developing the relevant functionality in CENTRIS to obtain a like-for-like comparison with other options.

Implementation Costs / £1,746,086
Recurring Annual Costs / £40,000

7.2Ability To Deliver

  • There is nothing in the Customer Management Programme that CENTRIS is not technically capable of delivering.
  • There requires to be more joined-up working with the Council web team to deliver the self-service capability
  • ITS will require to give a commitment to provide the significant resources required for the period of the programme.

7.3Development of New Functionality

  • It is expected that this option will be the most expensive and time consuming when new functionality is required, given our previous experiences of development cycles and ITS charging models. It also relies heavily on ITS doing most of the configuration/development, with little control and flexibility for users to make any system changes however minor.
  • Over the past year CENTRIS development has adopted a design model which includes business logic within web services. This has the advantage that the web services can be re-used within other modules developed for the contact centre and web interfaces for public access. Over time this will reduce development costs but it is not possible to quantify by how much given the early stage of working with this new technology.
  • The costs to develop interfaces to backend systems should be similar to developing them for any other CRM.

7.4Re-use or Sharing Savings

  • There will be no opportunity to make savings by using modules developed by other councils.
  • There will perhaps be less opportunity, or an increased cost, to re-use adaptors supplied by vendors for integration with back-office systems.

7.5Advantages

  • We would be developing an existing solution with which staff are very familiar and generally satisfied.
  • Training timescales and costs would be greatly reduced.
  • There is a much reduced reliance on 3rd party suppliers to take us forward.
  • Control over development and support and maintenance would remain in-house
  • There would be no need for an initial capital outlay to purchase another solution.

7.6Disadvantages

  • The current strategy within ITS is to buy rather than build and this option would undermine this approach.
  • Substantial IT resource would be required and this represents an opportunity cost for the Council in terms of its other IT priorities.
  • Experience has shown that development timescales tend to be protracted when undertaken in-house.
  • The businesslacks the flexibility to easily modify requirements as these become apparent. Clarify limited scope for non technical/developer staff to make changes.
  1. Purchase of Lagan
  2. This option would be to adopt Lagan as the CRM/customer tracking system to deliver the functionality described in the Customer Management Programme. As Lagan has already been procured as the favoured CRM solution nationally by the Improvement Service an umbrella agreement is already in place, therefore , no tendering process would be required to purchase this system.

8.2Costs

The major cost of Lagan will be the upfront purchase of the core systems plus modules, services from Lagan to assist us, training and ongoing costs and maintenance.

Implementation Costs / £738,000
Recurring Annual Costs / £57,000

8.3Ability to Deliver

  • Lagan have undertaken a comprehensive review of Fife’s requirements and are able to deliver the functionality required.
  • Other councils have been contacted and have confirmed Lagan’s ability to meet their requirements which are similar to those of Fife.
  • Lagan’s plans have proven to be realistic in the past in their work with other councils and they have provided a high-level plan which indicates that the system could be implemented with our chosen functionality in around 10-12 months from sign-off.
  • Self-Service is a core part of Lagan and Fife will be in a position to give customers more choice as a result of this.
  • Lagan has successfully integrated with many other systems, some of which are in use in Fife (e.g. Confirm, Uniform).
  • An ITServices technical review has taken place which shows there are no technical reasons to prevent us form choosing Lagan. All identified risks/issues have either been mitigated, resolved or accepted.

8.4Development of New Functionality

  • It is expected that the development of new functionality will be less time consuming and therefore cost less than developing equivalent functionality in CENTRIS. The following information has been obtained from other councils to support this expectation:

East Renfrewshire estimate that it takes 25% of the time to develop new functions than it took with their previous CRM (Oracle)

North Lanarkshire claim that development of case management processes can be done relatively quickly.

West Lothian configured over 1000 business processes in around 3-4 months. Configuring simple – medium processes can take from an hour to a day and does not require specialist IT staff. The real time is spent agreeing these processes with the business in their experience.

  • Discussion with North Lanarkshire Council suggests that the costs to develop interfaces to backend system should be similar to developing them for CENTRIS.

8.5Re-use and Sharing Savings

  • There would be opportunities to make savings by using modules developed by other councils. There is a User Group website which will allow us to confirm any modules which may be of use to the council.
  • The Scottish Improvement Service is working to encourage councils to establish common processes and to develop re-usable modules. One example of this is the members’ portal which is a joint development by 6 councils.
  • There will be opportunities to purchase off the shelf modules to integrate with back-office systems from Lagan. The cost of these adaptors is likely to be less than developing in-house as Lagan will recoup their costs by selling to many councils.
  • As a Council we have the opportunity to re-use Lagan in other areas and avoid the purchase of new systems. They are also about to implement a module for Absence Management. HR Direct have looked into systems to help them manage their cases and Lagan could potentially be used.
  1. Advantages (sorry don’t know why numbering has changed!)
  2. The solution has been procured nationally and therefore it reduces significantly the implementation timescales.
  3. Eighteen Scottishcouncils have deployed or are planning to deploy Lagan. As part of a National Framework agreement, preferential rates are available to councils who adopt it. There are significant savings in procuring through the framework e.g. site licence reduced from £291,000 to £175,000
  • Lagan has produced a return on investment (ROI) analysis that has been modelled against Fife’s circumstances and aspirations. Based on the lowest investment model, they anticipate net savings over five years of £2.6 million, although further work is required to test how robust this model is, particularly given Lagan’s vested interest in being able to show a positive return. However it is worth noting that this is lower than Fife’s estimates and shows a more considered view.
  • None of the councils using the system we have spoken to expressed any significant adverse reaction to the company or the product. They have confirmed that Lagan was implemented to time and budget. This provides Fife with the evidence and confidence that the proposed plans are achievable.
  • The Lagan option offers flexibility and scalability and fits well with IT strategy overall. It also has the capability to be developed in line with the Customer Management and Mobile and Flexible working programmes.
  • The costs are lower in absolute terms than CENTRIS. The initial large outlay is mitigated by the vastly reduced costs of further development as we move forward compared to in-house development.
  • The solution will allow Fife to achieve true self-service and offer our customers choice and value. This will include areas such as fault-reporting, special uplifts and environmental service requests.
  • Lagan supports mobile and home-working and can therefore underpin some of the objectives of the mobile and flexible working programme, e.g. procurement of Lagan will allow the Council to purchase a leading appointment/scheduling tool of choice without going to tender and at a vastly reduced rate.

8.7Disadvantages