South Wales Evening Post - 19 March 2007
A Top-level probe will investigate why Swansea Council's much-vaunted new computer system has left the authority with a £18 million savings deficit.
Senior city councillors and officers will take part in the four-month inquiry, which is expected to get underway this week.
It will look into why the new multi-million pound IT system, part of the authority's eGovernment project, has failed to save anywhere near as much money as was originally predicted.
Private IT firm Capgemini signed the £83 million contract to replace the council's ageing computer network in January last year.
Other charges and costs will put the total cost of the work at nearer £99 million.
When the scheme was announced, residents were told it was phase one of a scheme that would pave the way for a new, hi-tech call centre.
Savings from the first phase were to be used to help develop the second.
But less than £8 million of a projected £26 million of savings have so far been identified as achievable, and the call centre plan has now been ditched.
This week, the council's performance scrutiny board is to launch an official probe into why the estimated savings at the beginning of the project differed so wildly from those at the end.
Senior council officers and cabinet members, as well as Capgemini representatives and other experts, will be asked to give evidence about what went wrong.
Swansea Council announced last month that controversial plans for the second phase of the work - mailto:Service@Swansea- had been dropped, along with its high-profile partner Capgemini.
The authority wanted to create a one-stop shop and call centre, paid for using savings from phase one.
But as costs spiralled, that plan was ditched.
Now the city will now use a much cheaper option, adopting a customer system already used in Cardiff.
A report into the phase one savings shortfall, complete with conclusions and any recommendations, should be ready by mid July.
Board members will this week be asked to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the investigation.
A report to members reads: "The board was concerned about the difference between the budgeted figures and those signed off."
