service cost assessment service 17/04/2015 summary … sample report.pdf · number of ict staff...

17/04/2015 Socitm | Platform for Research

http://www.socitmbenchmarking.co.uk/results.asp?c=o 1/25

Service Cost Assessment Service

17/04/2015Summary Report

Confidential

Published by the Society of Information Technology Management, 8a Basset Court, Grange Park, Northampton, NN4 5EZ.All rights reserved. This publication and the content of the online system from which it is derived may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system ortransmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the publisher.Please direct enquiries about this report or the Socitm Benchmarking ICT service to [email protected] (telephone: 01604 497587).Further information may be found on the Socitm website at www.socitm.net

Copyright 2015Socitm Ltd



Summary ReportThis section examines the results for the following:

ICT Expenditure 2014/15 (£k)ICT Expenditure 2014/15 (£k)Percentage total expenditure spent on ICTICT spend per head of population (£)ICT spend per user (£)ICT total spend per device supported (£)Number of 'workstations' normalized to 100%Number of devices per userNumber of ICT staff (FTEs) employed by work areaNumber of ICT staff (FTEs) employed by work area normalized to 100%Number of users supported per ICT staff memberPercentage Central ICT staff leavingPercentage Central ICT staff joining% net change in staffing levels (Joiners Leavers)Percentage ICT staff turmoilSourcing model high level summarySourcing model detailed summarySharing status: relative frequency of partner type citations as % of grand totalSharing status: relative magnitude (number of sharing events) as % of grand total

Introductory NotesMedian and other quartile valuesOnly charts displaying a single parameter on the vertical axis show calculated 1st, 2nd and 3rd quartile values as coloured horizontal bars. The 2ndquartile value is otherwise known as the median value, i.e. the numerical value below which half of the sample lies and half above.

Median and other quartile values are generally considered to be more representative of a distribution of values than a single simple averagebecause they are not affected by any anomalously high or low outliers.

The median value may be coincidentally the same as the average value – the sum of all the vertical numerical axis values divided by the number ofdata points – but the two are calculated by different methods.



Scope of benchmarkingThe benchmarking exercise covered the following aspects of service:

PROFILING THE SERVICE

Administrative dataICT estate and delivery modelStaffing resourcesFinancial resources

Method of benchmarkingService Cost Assessment participants should be aware that the utility of benchmarking comparisons depends greatly upon assuring that like iscompared with like. Your data is being compared to a selection from last year's submissions by Socitm's Benchmarking ICT Service (BICT)customers. This data set comprises:

2 English counties2 English districts4 English unitaries11 London boroughs3 Metropolitan boroughs12 Scottish unitaries1 Welsh unitary3 Australian councils2 Shared service arrangements1 National charity1 Housing association3 Others

There has been no attempt to assess the quality of match between yourself and the sizes and natures of the organisations in the comparator dataset nor have we worked with you to validate the quality of the data you have submitted. As a consequence of these limitations, the results of thisexercise should be used with due consideration of these facts.

Socitm BICT participants complete a more extensive questionnaire online, supported by a Socitm consultant. There is a launch workshop, anextensive period of data review and validation checking, and (in group exercises) results workshops before consultant and participant annotatedfinal reports are concluded. All participants utilise the same foundation set of questions and definitions of terms, which do evolve over time inconsultation with Socitm members.



How to read this reportYour data is compared to that of others in the following charts. Where it is a simple bar chart, your data is the blue bar. Where it is a stacked barchart, your data is marked with a "Y" character (i.e. "You") on the horizontal axis. Some other charts explicitly label your data "You".

The other participants' data in a given chart has been anonymized by removing identifying axis labels and sorting the data in each chart so that barheights smoothly descend from left to right.

Where calculable, the first, second (median) and third quartile values are shown in the charts as coloured horizontal lines and the numerical valuesalso appear above the chart after the chart key.



ICT Expenditure 2014/15 (£k)Employee Premises Transport Supplies Third party Support services Capital financing Capital spend1st Quartile 5803 Median 10890 3rd Quartile 16008

Y0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000



ICT Expenditure 2014/15 (£k)

Employee Premises Transport Supplies Third party Support services Capital financing Capital spend

Y0

25

50

75

100



Percentage total expenditure spent on ICT

1st Quartile 1.62 Median 2.01 3rd Quartile 2.72

Y

1

2

3

4

5



ICT spend per head of population (£)

1st Quartile 26 Median 41 3rd Quartile 59

Y

0

20

40

60

80



ICT spend per user (£)


Y

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000



ICT total spend per device supported (£)


Y0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000



Number of 'workstations' normalized to 100%

Fat PC Thin client Laptop Tablet

Y0

25

50

75

100



Number of devices per user


Y0.0

0.9

1.8

2.7

3.6



Number of ICT staff (FTEs) employed by work area

Outsourced Shared Services Employed by organisation 1st Quartile 51 Median 88 3rd Quartile 137

Y0

100

200

300

400



Number of ICT staff (FTEs) employed by work area normalized to 100%

Outsourced Shared Services Employed by organisation

Y0

20

40

60

80



Number of users supported per ICT staff member


Y0

30

60

90

120



Percentage Central ICT staff leaving

1st Quartile 3.72 Median 8.85 3rd Quartile 14

Y

2

9

16

23

30



Percentage Central ICT staff joining

1st Quartile 1.85 Median 7.80 3rd Quartile 14

Y0

10

20

30

40



% net change in staffing levels (Joiners Leavers)


Y

22

11

0

11

22



Percentage ICT staff turmoil

1st Quartile 7.45 Median 17 3rd Quartile 31

Y

10

20

30

40

50



Sourcing model high level summary

A more detailed breakdown is shown on the next chart.

Fully or mostly inhouseFully or mostly outsourcedFully or mostly shared service

19.4%

77.4%



Sourcing model detailed summaryFully or mostly inhouseFully or mostly outsourcedFully or mostly shared serviceEqual mix

0 8 16 24 32

Fully inhouse

Mostly inhouse, some outsourced

Mostly inhouse, some shared service

Mostly inhouse, some outsourced and some shared service

Fully outsourced

Mostly outsourced, some inhouse

Mostly outsourced, some shared service

Mostly outsourced, some inhouse and some shared service

Fully shared service

Mostly shared service, some inhouse

Mostly shared service, some outsourced

Mostly shared service, some inhouse and some outsourced

Equal mix: inhouse, outsourced shared service

Percentage



Sharing status: relative frequency of partner type citations as % of grand total

0 10 20 30 40

Central/devolved government

Other local government

NHS

Police/Fire/Ambulance services

Third sector

Other public sector

Private Sector

Other

Percentage



Sharing status: relative magnitude (number of sharing events) as % of grand total

0 10 20 30 40

Central/devolved government

Other local government

NHS

Police/Fire/Ambulance services

Third sector

Other public sector

Private Sector

Other

Percentage



About quartilesThe graphic below shows a set of example KPI results for twelve benchmarking participants A to L. Participant A got the lowest score of 10 andparticipant L got the highest score of 120. The first, second and third quartile values are the KPI scores which divide the set of participant scoresinto four quarters or ‘quartile ranges’ containing an equal number of participants. The result is three participants in each quartile range in thisexample. The second quartile value is otherwise known as the ‘median value’, i.e. half scored more than the median value and half scored less.



Socitm Statement of ResponsibilityThe data used in the preparation of this report was provided by Benchmarking ICT participants. Socitm therefore makes no representations orwarranties with respect to the accuracy of the data and any derived information contained in this report.

Socitm shall not be liable to any client, person or entity for any inaccuracy or inauthenticity of information contained in this report or any errors oromissions in its content, regardless of the cause of such inaccuracy, inauthenticity, error or omission.

Socitm shall not be liable for consequential, incidental or punitive damages to any person or entity in any matter relating to this report.

service cost assessment service 17/04/2015 summary … sample report.pdf · number of ict staff...

Documents