POL00374750
POL00374750
Message
From: Gayle A Peacock I
Sent: 07/08/2014 08:
To: Kevin Gillilan ingela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Slide deck for Friday
Attachments: Branch Support Programme - Steering Group Pack 8 8 14 pptx - final (2).pptx
Hi Kevin
Thanks for the feedback. In terms of your comments/questions:
1. The impact on net debt is to do with the suspension figures and making sure we aren't moving the
former debt to current debt. I won't get the figures from FSC until tomorrow morning so my plan was to
up-date the group when I have them.
2. In terms of penetration testing, HORICe will be made available to us on a web platform and therefore
jt needs to be tested to ensure we have the correct firewalls in place due to the sensitivity of the
information. They have identified that some of the data is a bit unstable so they need to put it through
the testing at the end of August which will delay us by two weeks. This is normally a cost of £6k but
Fujitsu have agreed to pick up the cost.
3. There are a number of savings we want to bring forward into Quarter 4. I've added these numbers into
Slide 5 in the deck so we can see where they are coming from.
4. I've changed the training KPI to amber but given the feedback that we've had a bout the testing, then
I predict we will still out-turn at 95% at the end of the year.
5. Apologies - I think I've confused things here. The total cost for delivering the compliance training
every year is approx. £220k. These costs are made up of printing costs (c.70% of the cost), manual
resource at various points in the process either at the front end or chasing branches that don't complete
it, and costs we incur to put the test on Horizon. We have said that we will probably be able to strip
out £180k of the costs if we got everybody to complete the training on-line rather than Horizon, and turn
off the workbooks. There would still be an element of resource required to manage the process. £51k of
this £180k is connected with the new entrants process, which would be Phase 1 of the migration. A team in
Bolton currently print off c.10 workbooks per new delegate and send them out to them and they complete
them manually on-line. Every new entrant would be told to go on-line and not given the choice. If we
wanted to realise the remaining £130k of benefit and take the tests off Horizon, then we would have to
make a business decision as to whether we told people they have to use their own equipment or we provide
equipment for them. At this point in time, providing equipment is probably cost prohibitive. However, if
we link up with Business Transformation, they might help us with this.
6. In terms of the telephone proposal, the level of detail hasn't been worked through at this stage and
we haven't engaged Michael with our thinking. What we really wanted was endorsement from yourself and the
group to start to look at it and understand what benefits may be delivered. If you would like me to
remove the slide I can.
Hopefully this makes sense. If you've happy for me to send I'll circulate to the group.
Thanks
Gayle
Gayle Peacock I Branch Support Programme
h Standards_T 2nd Floor, The Markets, 6-16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
M
gayle. a.peacoc
-Original Message-----
Kevin Gilliland
06 August 2014 20:30
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Gayle A Peacock
Subject: Re: Slide deck for Friday
Thx both,
POL00374750
POL00374750
A couple of questions/comments:
What do we mean by, ‘impact on net debt is showing’?
why do we need further penetration testing for HORICe and how much delay does this cause?
I thought we were going to try to achieve the savings (or at least some of them) in this FY?
Why is satisfaction with training green when it is behind target?
On-line regulatory training: I don't understand how this will save us £180 per year when the current cost
is only £51k. What percentage of people are we assuming will use the on-line training - and what happens
to those that can't? It would be helpful for this slide to be a little clearer so eye can see how the
benefits are made up and the sensitivities and assumptions.
Revised approach to telephone support: I'm supportive of the need to provide better service and
particularly efficiency savings and it feels right that we explore this but I don't have enough
information to support anything other than this high level approach which questions whether you need this
in the pack at this stage. Is Michael bought in?
Regards,
K
sent from my ipad
On 6 Aug 2014, at 16:39, "Angela Van-Den-Bogerd" <; GRO wrote:
>
>
> Kevin,
>
>
Please find attached the slide deck Gayle has prepared for Friday’s steering group meeting. Could you
let us have any comments by tomorrow morning please as we’re aiming to send the slides out by midday to
enable time for Steering Group members to review in advance of our dial in meeting on Friday at 3pm.
v
On Friday we will also need to give on BTr and alignment to BSP.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
[Description: address]
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
[Description: mobile]
[Description: email]
bogerd:
(Description: web]
(Description: twitter]
@postof ficenews<http: //ww. twitter.com/postofficenews>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Post office stories<http://ww.postofficestories.co.uk/>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Description: footer]
>
> Confidential Information:
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
>
> <Branch Support Programme - Steering Group Pack 8 8 14 pptx - final
> (2).pptx> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png>
> <image008.png> <image009.png> <image002. jpg>