Orchard Value for Money Assessment Overview of Approach ... · The Housing Management Systems...

DRAFT

07/06/2011 Orchard Value for Money Assessment page 1 of 38 E&N BRM Team Outline of Approach & Findings version 1.0

Orchard Value for Money Assessment

Overview of Approach and Findings

Document History Date Details of Change Version Author

10/02/2011 Initial Draft 0.1 Peter Harding

14/2/2011 Reviewed and amended 0.2 Peter Harding/Karen Batty

25/02/2011 Revisions following meeting with John Statham.

0.3 Peter Harding

03/03/2011 Final edits, inclusion of missing Appendix data.

1.0 Peter Harding

DRAFT


Table of Contents

1. Background ..........................................................................................................................3

1.1. Criteria............................................................................................................................3

1.2. Potential Outcomes.........................................................................................................3

1.3. Detailed Approach ..........................................................................................................4 1.3.1. Stage 1 – Functionality ......................................................................................4 1.3.2. Stage 2 – Costs...................................................................................................4

1.4. Exclusions .......................................................................................................................5

2. Findings - Functionality ......................................................................................................6

2.1. Questionnaire..................................................................................................................6 2.1.1. Common Features & Functionality....................................................................6 2.1.2. Maintenance and Repairs...................................................................................6 2.1.3. Rents & Arrears .................................................................................................7 2.1.4. Choice Based Lettings & Homelessness............................................................7 2.1.5. Conclusions........................................................................................................7

2.2. Industry Review...............................................................................................................8 2.2.1. Comparative Studies ..........................................................................................8 2.2.2. Benchmarking Studies .......................................................................................8 2.2.3. Industry Poll.......................................................................................................9 2.2.4. Conclusions........................................................................................................9

2.3. Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................9

3. Findings – Costs .................................................................................................................10

3.1. Current Operational/Ownership Costs.........................................................................10 3.1.1. Exclusions ........................................................................................................10

3.2. Operational/Ownership Costs of other Housing Management Systems.......................10

3.3. Estimated New System Implementation Costs ..............................................................11

3.4. Conclusions...................................................................................................................11

4. Summary and Recommendations.....................................................................................12

4.1. Recommendation...........................................................................................................12

5. Appendices..........................................................................................................................14

5.1. Appendix 1 – System Functionality Questionnaire.......................................................14

5.2. Appendix 2 – Orchard Strategic Direction...................................................................24

5.3. Appendix 3 – Golding Homes Value for Money Assessment Summary ........................26

5.4. Appendix 4 – SocITM Benchmarking and Application Register results.......................32 5.4.1. SocITM Benchmarking....................................................................................32 5.4.2. SocITM Application Register. .........................................................................33

DRAFT


1. Background The Housing Management Systems employed by Housing Services were implemented in 1998 to replace the internally developed Housing mainframe. While full implementation of the new set of systems took several years, the Support and Maintenance contract for the Orchard Housing management system and a number of other associated systems will be due for renewal in September 2011, and therefore Housing Services need to understand whether these systems represent value for money, or whether the Council may be better off re-procuring and implementing a new set of systems.

1.1. Criteria In order to assess whether the current set of Housing Management Systems are delivering value for money to the Council, the following two stage assessment criteria has been adopted; Firstly, it should be identified whether the Orchard Housing Management system adequately supports the Councils’ requirements now and going forward. This includes:

• Whether the existing system supports the range of functions which the Council requires.

• Whether Orchard has proven to be adequately reliable and available to staff. • Whether the existing system has been supported and developed in a timely and

adequate fashion by the suppliers in order to deliver changes to the council’s working requirements during the lifetime of the products.

Secondly, it should next be identified what the costs associated with owning and operating these systems are, and what the likely costs would be of purchasing, implementing and operating a comparable or superior system. This should include:

• The current cost of maintaining and running the existing suite of applications. • The likely one off costs of moving to a new application set, including the cost of

procurement, implementation, training and testing. • Data migration and system integration • The likely cost of maintaining and running a new suite of applications with

comparable or better levels of functionality than the current systems..

1.2. Potential Outcomes In choosing to break the assessment down into these two simple stages the potential outcomes of the assessment are as follows:

• If the current suite of applications are not judged to be adequately supporting the Council’s requirements, then irrespective of the cost of ownership the system could not represent value for money.

• If the current suite of application are judged to be adequately supporting the Council’s requirements, but the costs of migration and ownership to another equally adequate system are likely to lower than the costs of owning the current suite of applications, then the system would not represent value for money.

Only if:

DRAFT


• The current suite of application are judged to be adequately supporting the Council’s requirements, and the cost of owning this system is likely to be lower than the cost of migrating to and owning an equally adequate system, would the current system represent value for money.

1.3. Detailed Approach 1.3.1. Stage 1 – Functionality At present Housing Services has no formal statement of requirements describing the functionality required from their suite of housing applications, as such in order to assess how well the current suite of applications meet the Council’s requirements, it was decided to canvass the views of staff with more experience of using the current suite of products. This was done through the use of detailed questionnaire which was specifically developed (See Appendix 1) by LCC and distributed to approx 50 experienced users to complete. The responses from the questionnaire were then collated to provide a picture of how well the experienced user base considered the existing system to be performing, and how well it is supporting them in their day to day work. Added to this internal assessment of the existing Orchard systems a poll has also been taken of how Orchard is perceived by other organisations outside Leeds. This was done via the Keystone User Group and other networks of social housing providers. Finally a review of current industry research was undertaken and results from both the SocITM Benchmarking Survey, and the SocITM Applications Register were incorporated. Housemark, Gartner and the Butler Group were also approached for any relevant industry research, but unfortunately nothing was currently available. 1.3.2. Stage 2 – Costs Obviously the financial costs operating and maintaining the existing Housing Management system are known, these have been collated to establish the total current costs of ownership, now that the system has been implemented. In contrast because of the constantly changing nature of technology, the increasing complexity of systems and processes, and the number of unpredictable quantities involved in a major system migration, the costs of implementing a new housing management system are almost impossible to identify precisely. In order to address this without adversely skewing the results of the overall assessment, the costs of migrating to a different housing management system have been developed from the actual costs of implementing the current Orchard Housing Management system.

DRAFT


This can only ever be an approximation, but by basing the figures on the actual costs to replace like for like of our current infrastructure, we are using figures for an implementation of exactly the right scale, and of an identical set up and configuration, factors which can obviously have a massive influence upon all costs. Finally, the costs of owning and maintaining a new suite of Housing Management applications have been developed by obtaining quotes from a number of Housing Management system suppliers, based upon the current number of users and properties within Leeds.

1.4. Exclusions For the purpose of this assessment a number of factors likely to impact upon the real world implementation of a new housing system have not been considered. This has been done purely to avoid confusing the results of the assessment with a plethora of smaller concerns like:

• Timelines for implementation – how long it would take to migrate from one system to another, the costs of any system downtime to partners, contractors and the service itself.

• Decommissioning of existing systems and infrastructure – the switch off costs for any hardware or associated systems used by the current system but not needed by a new system.

• Procurement costs – those additional costs associated with advertising and running a tender, above and beyond the costs of the winning solution payable to the winning supplier.

While all these factors and more would need to be considered prior to a final decision about whether or not to re-procure a housing management system, they do not add anything to this intermediate step, which aims purely to identify whether the current solution is providing a value for money service to the business and its partners.

DRAFT


2. Findings - Functionality Between September 2010 and January 2011 the various pieces of information required to complete the value for money assessment and the approach that would be used to obtain or develop them was agreed by E&N BRM team, the ICT Product Service Manager and the Housing Services team.

2.1. Questionnaire In order to identify how well the current housing management system was meeting the services requirements, a questionnaire (See Appendix 1) was developed and distributed to a group of approx 50 experienced users. These users were drawn from within the Council and its’ partners, and all the teams who use the Housing management system including: Corporate Contact Centre, Leeds Homes, Housing Options, Housing Application Support Team, and ALMO Area Teams. Of those contacted approx half responded, generating the following results: The results are divided into the same four broad sections as those used in the questionnaire:

• Common Features and Functionality • Maintenance and Repairs • Rents & Arrears • Choice Based Lettings (CBL) & Homelessness

2.1.1. Common Features & Functionality In general terms 76% of respondents described the current Orchard Housing Management system as either easy or very easy to use as far as the common features and functionality are concerned. More specifically, this figure remained high at between 73% – 85% in relation to the way in which the system managed property, people and tenancy information, but dropped to between 25% – 50% when it came to the speed and efficiency of the working processes, ease of information retrieval and quality of information stored, with more users describing these elements of the system as average. Approx 7% of users described the system as difficult to use. 2.1.2. Maintenance and Repairs In this section which asked users several questions about how well the system allowed them to manage the physical maintenance and checking of housing stock, 75% of respondents described the system in general as being either good or very good, while the remaining 25% described it as average or below. In response to the specific questions the perception of how well the system allows users to manage the work schedule, raise repairs, access the Schedule of Rates and repair history remained high with between 59% - 71% of respondents describing it as either easy or very easy to use.

DRAFT


However when it came to information about guarantees, and invoice maintenance users thought the system less useful with less than 29% of respondents considering the system to be easy or very easy to use, and over 65% of respondents describing it as either average or difficult to use. 2.1.3. Rents & Arrears This section asked users about their experience of using the Orchard Housing Management system for work relating to tenancy and especially the payment of rents and management of arrears. Although fewer respondents completed this section of the questionnaire of those that did respond 80% considered the system to be either good or very good in the way it supported their work, with the remaining 20% describing it as either average or poor at supporting them in their work. In response to the more specific questions between 63% and 81% of respondents considered the general layout of this section of the system and the viewing of tenancy account details, the administration of debts and arrears to be either easy or very easy to use. However this figure dropped to between 33% and 40% when it came to viewing the administering of bulk credits, general admin of rents, year end and management of bulk letter/postal notices. 2.1.4. Choice Based Lettings & Homelessness This final section asked users what they thought of the Choice Based Lettings and Homelessness related functionality within the Orchard Housing Management system. In terms of the high level view this area scored the least well in the questionnaire with only 57% of respondents describing the available functionality as either good or very good, while the remaining 43% described it as average or below. In answer to the more specific questions, only the Housing Application Workflow within the system scored on a par with the rest of the system with 73% of respondents describing the process as either easy or very easy to use. In contrast the Needs, Eligibility, and Suitability Assessment workflows are all described as average or difficult to use by between 50% - 67% of respondents. CBL scores similarly with only 33% of respondents describing the customer interface as easy or very easy to use, although in terms of reliability the perception is slightly better with over 56% of respondents viewing the system as having above average reliability. 2.1.5. Conclusions Although there are clearly some areas of the system which are viewed as being better than others, it’s seems clear that users view the current Orchard system positively and consider it to support their day to day work well.

DRAFT


In more specific terms, most users view the Orchard system as having not only the functionality which they require, but also to be relatively easy to navigate, search, view and store the data they need. On the downside, while those areas of the system which aren’t viewed as positively are still considered to be useable, this is sometimes with some difficulties. This is particularly evident in the responses relating to those modules used to manage Choice Based Lettings and Homelessness which are generally considered to be of an average quality, and not especially good or easy to use.

2.2. Industry Review In addition to canvassing the views of the existing user base within Leeds, a wider review was also undertaken of existing published research and views within the industry. 2.2.1. Comparative Studies Unfortunately during the course of this assessment there were no already published comparative studies of the various Housing Management systems available on the market. Gartner, Butler Group, SocITM and Housemark were all contacted to find out what if any relevant industry research they had available, but unfortunately nothing was at that time available. 2.2.2. Benchmarking Studies In the absence of any comparative research, the same organisations were also asked about any available benchmarking or application performance studies. In response to this SocITM provided both their Benchmarking Survey, and their Applications Register research. Developed from data and information gathered from public sector organisations including Leeds CC both of these pieces of research provide only a high level view of the various systems available within the market, they did however provide useful information about both Orchard reliability and its market share.

• Reliability According to the SocITM Benchmarking Survey (see appendix 4) and as the result of some exceptional downtime within Leeds in 2009-10, the Leeds implementation of Orchard appeared to be marginally less reliable than comparable implementations within other organisations, and with competitor housing management system implementations. However, once the known and exceptional circumstances leading to this additional downtime were taken into account, the Leeds implementation was entirely comparable to both the same application elsewhere and to competitor applications.

• Market Share. Although again only a high level indicator, According to the SocITM Applications Register (see appendix 4) the number of other public sector organisations moving away from their existing Orchard implementations in favour or another system was found to be very low. The number of public sector organisations procuring a new housing management system for the first time was obviously also very low, which overall resulted in all housing

DRAFT


management system providers retaining a very similar share of the market as the year before.

2.2.3. Industry Poll Finally, an informal poll of other organisations was taken by questioning members of the Keystone user group and other networks of social housing providers. While this was a relatively small consultation of around 20 organisations, it includes Orchard and non Orchard users, as well as organisations who have adopted Orchard and those who have been using it for several years. In general terms the members of this group view Orchard as a strong competitor within the Housing Management Application market, not only terms of price, but also in terms of both existing functionality, ongoing development and it’s strategic partnerships with companies like Keystone. These views are confirmed by the results of the Golding Homes value for money assessment which was completed in the 3 quarter 2010 – 11, which Golding Homes were kind enough to share with Leeds (See Appendix 3). In their assessment Golding Homes scored Orchard Information Systems highest against all other competitors on not only cost, but also maintenance and support, and available functionality. These view are also confirmed by City West Homes Limited via a recent procurement of a new Housing Management Solution where Orchard Information Systems won each category by 20%. 2.2.4. Conclusions It is clear from this relatively high level industry review that Orchard Information Systems as a company are well respected within the industry, with a strong and stable user base, and products which are considered to be effective, well priced, and continuing to develop. As a company Orchard also appear to have strong working relationships with several key partners, along with a well defined strategic direction (See appendix 2) compatible with the requirements of the Council going forward.

2.3. Summary of Findings The Orchard Housing Management system and the supporting suite of associated applications represent an effective and useful tool that adequately supports the day to day working requirements of the Council and it’s partners in their management of districts social housing. According to an internal survey of experienced users, the system provides almost all the functionality which the council and its’ partners require. There are clear areas where the supplier needs to improve the service which they offer, and where the functionality of their products needs further refinement, but these failings are not sufficient to fundamentally undermine the quality or value of the product as a whole. This internal view is confirmed by views within the industry and all the impartial research currently available upon the industry.

DRAFT


3. Findings – Costs The current Orchard housing management system implemented in 2005 is used not only by Leeds City Council, but also by the Arms Length organisations within the district, a number of registered social landlords and the various contractors and third party service providers who work for them. The costs outlined in this section of the assessment represent the total external cost of owning and operating the Orchard housing management system, or implementing an equally utilised system as a replacement.

3.1. Current Operational/Ownership Costs In the financial year 2010 – 11 the total cost of ownership for the Orchard housing management system was £1,818,114.89 This figure was comprised as follows:

• Licensing – based on the management of 58,000 properties, and usage by 800 staff.- £1,540,775.33

• Maintenance and support:- charged at a rate equivalent to 18% of license costs.- £277,339.56

3.1.1. Exclusions These figures do NOT include any internal LCC ICT costs for the maintenance and supervision of hardware, delivery of upgrades, restoration work following system down time etc As these figures would be both very difficult to identify with any level of precision for the existing system, and impossible to identify for any alternate solution. All costs included within this section of the assessment relate exclusively to the primary Housing Management system, currently Orchard, and do not include any costs associated with any other associated products with which Orchard or any replacement system would be integrated. Specifically this does not include any costs associated with asset management, collaboration, data warehousing, CRM, or service and inspection work, or real time reporting. It also does not include any cost details for additional services like workflow creation, or data interfaces like the HUB.

3.2. Operational/Ownership Costs of other Housing Management Systems For the purpose of this assessment the suppliers of several other market leading housing management systems have been contacted and asked to provide indicative costs for ownership for an organisation the size of Leeds, with 58,000 properties and approx 800 registered users. The companies contacted were: Northgate Civica Capita The costs of ownership have been broken down along the same lines as those listed above for the current Orchard system, i.e. annual licensing costs, and annual maintenance and support costs. The indicative costs provided by the suppliers are as follows:

DRAFT


Supplier

Annual Maintenance & Support Costs

Annual License Costs

Consultancy per day

Orchard 18% £277,339 £900 Northgate 25% £385,193 £1100 Civica 20% £308,155 £600-£750 Capita 20% £308,155 £800

3.3. Estimated New System Implementation Costs In addition to understanding the costs of owning and operating a housing management system, it is also important to understand the likely costs of implementing any new system in the first place. However, the costs associated with any system implementation can be affected by a large number of external factors, many of which can’t be identified in detail until the implementation is already underway. For the purpose of this assessment an estimated standard cost of implementation has been developed based upon the likely cost of implementing the current system again today. This cost can be broadly broken down into:

• New hardware purchase, set up and configuration costs for new system environments (Live, test, development. Etc) - £260

• Installation, set up and configuration of new application software.- £1,278,000

• Data cleansing & migration - £250k • Training – approx 5 days training for all users, and additional 5 days training

for approx 50 super users - £550k • Integration setup with existing systems - £387,000

Total cost to implement new system excluding licensing and support and maintenance which have captured above - £2,725,000.

3.4. Conclusions After examining the costs involved in owning and maintaining Orchard, and then comparing with the costs likely to be involved in implementing and owning a new system it is clear that moving away from Orchard to a new housing management system would be unlikely to save the council any money, and in all probability over a 5 year period would in fact result in significantly higher total costs. At it’s most simple level, because of the comparatively high costs associated with implementing any new housing management system, even if one could be procured with substantially lower annual costs of ownership it is unlikely that it could be implemented to replace Orchard without in effect increasing overall ICT costs. If the projected lifespan of any new system is increased from the industry standard of 5-8 years, then the long term total cost of ownership for a new system does become

DRAFT


more competitive with the ownership costs for Orchard, but as the table below demonstrates these costs would still represent a significant overhead, which would need to be applied in addition to any annual support and maintenance costs. However for even these figures to be achievable the council would have to commit to using the procured system for a period in excess of that which the current Orchard system has been implemented, and this would in effect be committing the service to using a system which would change and develop in entirely unknown and unpredictable ways over such a time frame. Initial implementation costs divided over 8 – 15 years (not inc support & maintenance) * Initial implementation costs – not including

8 years 10 years 12 years 15 years Imp Cost inc internal costs.

340,625 272,500 227,083 181,666

Imp Cost exc internal costs*

229,750 183,800 153,166 122,533

4. Summary and Recommendations After examining both the functionality and costs associated with the current Orchard housing management system, and identifying the likely costs associated with moving to and owning a different system, it is clear that the current Orchard system is well respected, delivers all the necessary functionality in a way which most users find easy to use, and is likely to cost the council less to own and operate over the next 5-8 years than implementing and operating any other comparable system. While the functionality in general is considered to be very good, as part of this assessment a number of areas have been identified where improvement is required, and where support from Orchard could be better delivered. In terms of costs, while it makes little financial sense to consider moving away from Orchard, as part of this assessment it was identified that other organisations receive services from Orchard for a lower cost than that paid by Leeds.

4.1. Recommendation Going forward, with the current system providing all the functionality required, and with no financial benefit in moving to another system it is the recommendation of this assessment that the contract with Orchard Information Systems, for their housing management system should be renewed as there would be no identifiable benefit in attempting to move away from Orchard or in procuring a new solution. More specifically, it is clear from both the very positive user responses within the assessment of current system functionality and the currently high costs associated with moving to another housing management system that the current Orchard implementation is likely to represent good value for money for the council for at least the next 3-5 years, and possibly longer.

DRAFT


If the decision is taken to renew the existing contract with Orchard Information Systems, then this short to medium term (3-5 year) value for money could reasonably be reflected in a corresponding contract renewal period. As a longer contract renewal would clearly be of advantage to Orchard, our willingness to consider a longer duration should provide the council with potential leverage in the contract negotiations, which should be used to negotiate reduced costs or other benefits.

DRAFT


5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – System Functionality Questionnaire Orchard Value For Money Questionnaire

The purpose of this questionnaire is to help LCC Housing Services understand how well the current Orchard Housing Management system supports the council and its partners in their role as residential housing providers. By collecting your opinions we hope to identify whether to keep/how to improve the current system or whether to look at moving to another. The following questions have been divided into four broad sections, which represent the core operations that the system should be able to perform. To keep the list of questions short, this won’t cover every aspect of how the system is used, but it will hopefully give a reasonable indication. The four sections into which the questions are divided are as follows:

• Common Features and Functionality • Maintenance and Repairs • Rents & Arrears • Choice Based Lettings (CBL) & Homelessness

If you don’t use the functionality relating to a particular section then please just ignore it and move on to the next section. Likewise if any of the questions aren’t relevant or would be tricky for you answer, just leave them blank and move on. Any other comments. While we’ve tried to ask questions that will give us a reasonable indication of how well the system supports the work you need to do, we obviously haven’t covered everything, so there’s a section at the very end of the document where we’d appreciate you adding any additional comments that you think would be useful or that we should pay attention to. Feedback. Once we’ve got about 50+ responses to this questionnaire we’ll collate the results, and share them with you, so you’ve got a chance to see them before they get written up into a final report which will inform any decisions made about the system.

Your Details

Name:

Job/Role:

Team/Service

DRAFT


1. Common Features and Functionality These are the bits that most people will probably make some use of on a regular or occasional basis In General What do you think of the general way in which Orchard works, is it fairly easy to make your way around the system, find, edit or add any information you need?

Very Good Good Average Poor Very Bad

Additional info (please make any additional comments here)

a) Property Info

How easy is it for you to find, update and cross reference information about the property details stored on Orchard?. Things like using the Address Tab or getting to the Tenancy History, Habitable Details Information, using the Property UDC, Aids & Adaptations, Block / Dwelling Information etc.

Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


b) People info

How easy is it for you to find, update and cross reference information about residents stored on Orchard? Things like finding someone’s record’s by searching on their name, checking the last known address and person status, updating personal info, contact data, tenancy history,. Or simply looking up support info, risk/hazard, UDC’s e.g. beware of the dog, health, language, literacy etc



c) Tenancies

How easy is it for you to access information about who’s living in a property? Things like finding out whether a property is currently occupied, tenancy type. Searching by Tenancy number/Benefit user code, tenancy history, who is lead tenant.



d) Navigation

How well does Orchard allow you to navigate between different screens/data. Things like moving between property, tenancy and people info


DRAFT



e) Complexity

How consistent and straightforward is the system to use. Is it easy to work out where you need to go to fulfil your work requirements?



f) User Definable Characteristics (UDCs)

Where the system can’t do what you want ‘out of the box’ a UDC can be created. If you’ve used this functionality how easy would you say it is to ADD, MODIFY or DELETE a UDC?



g) Automatic letter generation, spooling, mail merge and printing

functionality – HAST only Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


h) How would you rate this function overall? Is it fairly quick and easy to set up a

new form letter, define printing options, mail shots and round robins. Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


i) System Security and User Management – HAST only

While this kind of functionality might be used less frequently, how easy would you say it is to make password changes/resets, set up new users, or delete or suspend user accounts which are no longer required?



j) Information Storage

Does the system hold most/all of the information you need to keep a record of around properties, customers and their tenancies?

DRAFT


Things like contact details, notes about disabilities or special needs, historic information like previous addresses or changes of name.



k) Information Retrieval

Does the system make it easy to find the information you need. Things like allowing you to find things in several different ways depending on what information you’ve got, or checking similar records to make sure you’ve got the right one.



l) Information Quality

Can you tell when the information you’ve found is correct and up-to-date. Things like enabling you to see who last updated a record, when and with what information?



m) Working processes

How useful and user-friendly is the system and its processes to use. Things like, does the system make it easy to give customer updates about queries and requests, capture new requests, find out when a piece of work is due to start, make or alter a booking.



n) Speed and efficiency

Does the system allow you work quickly and efficiently. Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


2. Maintenance These are the bits of the system which allow you manage and co-ordinate the physical maintenance and checking of housing stock

DRAFT


In General What do you think of the way in which Orchard helps you to manage repairs.



a) How well does it allow you to understand what work is going to be done when,

whether appointments have been kept, and what our residents think of the service they’ve received?



b) Raising Repairs

How easy is it to raise, change or cancel repair orders? Things like: Enquiring into existing orders, Adding, Modifying, Varying and Cancelling repair orders, setting different priorities for order, selecting the appropriate Trades etc.



c) Schedule of Rates (SOR) selection

Does the system allow you to easily search for and identify the correct SOR selection.



d) Repair History

Does the system make it easy to examine both the Standard and Void Repair History? Can you easily identify what work has been done, when and by whom?



e) Inspections

Does the system enable you to easily add or amend, complete or cancel inspections. Things like Pre and Quality Inspections.


DRAFT



f) Guarantees

Does the system allow you to easily identify whether an asset or piece of work is still covered by a warranty, guarantee, or Defect Liability Period. This would include things like doors and windows which have recently been replaced.



g) Invoice Maintenance

Does the system allow you to easily find, examine and if necessary alter invoice details. Things like: Searching to find the right invoice. matching jobs against invoices, making manual submissions, modifying iInvoices. editing contractor claims, self billing (inc. automated reporting and automatic approval dates).



h) Repair Selection

Does the system enable you to easily find and identify specific repair jobs. Things like searching on job numbers, running reports: repairs by status, repairs by event, and searching by invoices.



i) Contractor Integration

Does the system allow you to easily access information which has been obtained from partner systems. Things like: Jobs raised. Completion, Events (work completed on site) and Variation overnight functionality importing.



j) Locator Plus Diagnosis

How easy is it for you to log a repair with the diagnostic tool Locator Plus. Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


DRAFT


k) Locator Plus Integration

Do you feel the integration between Locator Plus and Orchard works well. Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


3. Rents & Arrears These are the bits of the system which allow you to identify and examine tenancy details and especially the payment of rent due. In General What do you think of the way in which Orchard helps you to manage the receipt of rent payments, and to keep track of and work with accounts which have fallen into arrears.



a) Rents & Arrears: Viewing Account Details

How easily does the system allow you to access information such as general account details and payment methods, arrears summary information and tenancy and property type details.



b) Rents & Arrears: Layout

Is the information relating to debit and credit history, and charges and benefits presented in an easy to understand and accessible format.



c) Rents: Viewing Ledger & Audit History & Notepad

How easy is it to access rent ledger and audit information. Things like viewing information by a defined date range, or drilling down into individual line ledger Info. Examining an arrears audit history.



DRAFT


d) Rents: Administering Bulk Credits How easy is it to import large numbers of Housing Benefit, Allpay and Direct Debits credits



e) Rents: Administering Debits – Finance & HAST only

How well does the system support the automation of periodical debit processes. Things like rent calculations



f) Arrears: Administration

How well does the system support your weekly period actions and recommendations along with automated and manual letter (‘Form’) production. Things like making manual actions, arrangements and judgments, adding comments against actions.



g) Arrears: Recommendation and Workload Screen

How easily does the system allow you to view arrears recommendations by area or account manager, view summary recommendations by action or by recovery group



h) Rents: General Administration

How Putting adjustments on accounts, setting up Rent Charges and Benefit Entitlement Information.



i) Rents: Year End Setup and Functionality

How well does the system support Parameter setup, loading bulk rent charges and calendar creation and target rents.

DRAFT




j) Rents: Bulk letter or mail merge data production

How easy does the system make it for you to prepare quarterly rent statement data, bulk direct debit letters, and round robins.



4. Choice Based Lettings (CBL) & Homelessness This relates to the bits of the system which are used to manage the letting of social housing through the choice based lettings process, along with the various functionality used to provide the Housing Options service to people experiencing housing crisis. In General What do you think of the way in which Orchard supports the management and letting of social housing, including the management and prioritisation of customer registration and applications.



a) Housing Application Workflow

Do you feel workflow has had a positive effect on the way in which you undertake housing applications?



b) Needs Assessment Workflow

Do you feel workflow has had a positive effect on the way in which you undertake housing needs assessments?



DRAFT


c) Eligibility Assessment Workflow Do you feel workflow has had a positive effect on the way in which you undertake housing eligibility assessments?



d) Suitability Assessment Workflow

Do you feel workflow has had a positive effect on the way in which you undertake housing suitability assessments?



e) CBL Customer Interfaces

How well do you feel Orchard supports the different customer interfaces for choice based lettings. Things like, does the system make it relatively easy to operate an sms or web based CBL service, does it properly integrate with Orchard, or can you easily update Orchard with data from these services?



f) CBL Reliability

How reliable do you feel the Orchard CBL service is Very Easy Easy Average Difficult Not Possible


Any other comments While the above questions will hopefully give us a reasonable overview of how well the system is enabling you to work and meeting your needs. If there are any points you feel it would be worth raising, then do please add them below, they’ll all be taken into account.

DRAFT


5.2. Appendix 2 – Orchard Strategic Direction Extracted details of strategic direction for their housing management system supplied by Orchard Information Systems: Orchard Housing is a fully integrated ICT business solution for social housing providers. Orchard describe it as their “next generation” solution because it provides capabilities that go far beyond the transactional housing management systems available on the marketplace. Orchard’s latest develop will establish the ability for wider integration with other systems for information transfer Workflow will allow users to standardise their working practices, forcing all uses to follow the same path Allow the future in-house development of new Orchard Housing Workflows which will improve efficiency, ie dual keying All Leeds to have access to their latest modules, Contact Management, Community Action, Customer Knowledge and Orchard’s Self Service Portal, modules that the business have already expressed an interest in. Orchard Housing already offers a wealth of fully integrated housing management functionality including all of the following modules Rent Accounting and Arrears Management Responsive Repairs Planned Maintenance Direct Works Property Lettings Void Management Home Ownership Homelessness Supporting People Choice Based Lettings Private Sector Leasing Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Process Management Work and Performance Management Anti-Social Behaviour Estate Management Some of these are still under development to work in OH, but all will be available by September 2011. Orchard are also developing a unified security model delivery of ubiquity – mobile on any device

DRAFT


CTI (TAPI development) Multi tenancy (Saas) have more than one app on a device. Resident involvement, such as case, campaign and event management

DRAFT


5.3. Appendix 3 – Golding Homes Value for Money Assessment Summary

Report to SMT

on the review of the Orchard system 28th September 2010

Background The Orchard system was implemented in 2006 and includes ArcHouse which provides Housing Management functions and ArcHouse Plus for customer relationship management. This report details the review which has been carried out and current conclusions drawn. The review scope does not include Open Accounts. The objectives of the review are;

• To consider the current use of the system(s) and identify strengths and weaknesses

• To provide a value for money perspective on a system/supplier which makes up 18% (2009/10) of the ICT budget with an annual spend of over £100, 000 per year (2008/9 was £183, 570)

• Before taking a significant upgrade to the system, to ensure that it meets the on-going requirements of Golding Homes

In April 2010 the scope of the review was agreed as including;

• A review of the current system to establish it’s effectiveness and any short comings

• A review of the spend/costs of maintaining and developing the Orchard system

• External challenge provided by Tribal considering alternative suppliers and the impact of making changes

• Consideration of the impact and cost of replacing the system • Recommendations for the future of the system

Work Undertaken To Date A kick off meeting was carried out with the Orchard Management group to discuss the objectives of the review, the tasks to be undertaken and how they would be involved. A questionnaire to analyse current strengths and weaknesses of the system was sent to 50 staff and the results analysed. A presentation was provided by Claire Bayliss of Tribal which covered an assessment of the current market for Housing Management systems, the likely cost

DRAFT


and impact of replacing the Orchard system and her recommendations on how we should move forward. A meeting between two Orchard Directors and Golding Homes to discuss a number of issues and how we would like to work with them in future. A one day demonstration from Orchard staff of their new Orchard Housing system which they propose as the way forward, attended by staff from around the organisation. An analysis of support costs, how these compare with other systems and a detailed comparison with other Orchard Users. Current Use of the System and Feedback from Staff A questionnaire was sent to 50 staff and 27 responded. Different teams use different parts of the system and so feedback on some modules of the system were limited to 3 responses. Strengths

Reliability and performance (ArcHouse) Rent arrears processing, action recommendations Ease of access to repairs history Automated production of letters Voids processing provided everyone updates it

Weaknesses

Reliability and performance of ArcHouse Plus Two systems (some use ArcHouse, some use ArcHouse Plus) Lack of in depth knowledge of repairs module Insufficient training provided to new staff on use of system Not enough information provided about ArcHouse Plus and how it should be

used Person database search is slow

Overall comments on ArcHouse were positive, but on ArcHouse Plus were negative, however this was based on comments by just 4 people. Issues raised Feedback Performance and reliability of ArcHouse Plus Will be addressed as part of upgrade to

Orchard Housing More training needed on all modules Will be part of upgrade process Person search slow Caused by a software bug which is resolved

in version 57 Too many UDCs on system – can be confusing

Examples needed and review process created

Problems with printing Examples of specific problems to be logged with ICT Service Desk

Too many notepads Teams need to agree how these are being used and what information is being held

DRAFT


Arrangement tables too complex The system matches business process Screen layouts on ArcHouse Plus not well laid out

Will be reviewed an improved as part of on-going process

Value for Money Spend with Orchard makes up 18% of ICT revenue costs at more than £100, 000 per year, this is more than 50% more than the next highest value ICT contract (telephony system overall value approx £40000 p.a.). During 2009 costs were compared to other organisations as part of a benchmarking exercise carried out by Tribal. Golding Homes costs were equal to £7.88 per unit in management. The following table shows the figures for the 38 housing associations who took part.

Cost per unit Average 9.10 Upper Quartile 10.07 Median 7.67 Lower Quartile 5.79

Direct comparisons are difficult because the systems are complex and some Housing Associations include modules such as Direct Works used to manage a DLO function, which we do not. In addition our costs include CRM provided by ArcHouse Plus, other organisations may have a third party product for CRM and so costs would not be included within those compared. Subsequently, more detailed work has been carried out as part of this review, comparing our support costs with Origin Group (5715 units), Watford Community Housing Trust (4800 units) and GreenSquare Group (Westlea HA use Orchard). Details of the annual support costs for each of these organisations are compared to our current (2010-2011) costs at Appendix A. The following table shows current costs against those charged for a new site implementing Orchard Housing.

GH Costs 2010/2011 New site costs ArcHouse 26038.68ArcHouse Plus 11873.19Orchard Housing 43893.33 37911.87 43893.33 It is possible that a new site would be offered a discount against the amount quoted, Tribal advise us that Orchard have only won a single new site in the last 12 months and therefore it is possible that discounts approaching 10% may be offered. A number of value for money issues have been discussed with Orchard and key outcomes are;

DRAFT


Reduction in the cost quoted for the Community Action Module (for ASB) by

£6000 including a £1000 reduction in annual support.

Agreement to reimburse the costs paid as part of the original contract for a Supporting People module which was never implemented £1787.50.

Orchard are working to consolidate their billing arrangements from 12 invoices

per year to 4.

The offer to work flexibly with us to reduce the amount of expenses charged when consultants visit site

The future – Orchard Housing Orchard provided a demonstration of their new product – Orchard Housing to 11 staff who represented all areas of the organisation. The system is based on the existing database but provides updated client access screens, so has a newer more up to date look and feel. A key benefit for Golding Homes is that Orchard Housing brings the ArcHouse and ArcHouse Plus systems together. Improvements in navigation and shortcuts through the system demonstrated led staff to comment that they would be working more effectively with the new system. New functions were also demonstrated including improvements to Appointments functionality and customer surveys. Staff also saw an overview of the Community Action Module and how it could be used to log customer involvement activities. The upgrade process is likely to take approximately 3-6 months and will begin with a consultancy day to scope the project in detail. Conclusions Following the presentation from Claire Bayliss of Tribal, managers did not feel that there was a strong enough business case for changing systems and suppliers. This decision was reached because;

all suppliers and systems have good and bad points and none distinguish themselves in any significant way,

the budget needed to change systems would be approaching £500, 000, the project would take up to 2 years to complete, the Orchard ArcHouse system is generally liked by staff and they feel that

it is reasonably effective at delivering the functions needed.

Claire Bayliss advised that unless the relationship with our current supplier had completely broken down it was unlikely that a change could be justified.

DRAFT


It was felt that the system would improve if we worked harder to understand how to get the best from it. This was evidenced by the Tribal presentation – where Claire Bayliss explained that all of the major housing systems deliver similar functionality, working well or less well at numerous other housing organisations, depending on the investment that they make. One example of this is the arrears module which was felt to work well and accurately reflects current processes and procedures. This is due to the involvement of one of the original implementation team, Steve Marshall who works with Steven Ware to continually improve the system for his team. To improve other modules we need to encourage staff to work with the ICT Team to ensure that the system delivers on constantly changing requirements, empower them to attend user group meetings and to get involved in ensuring that the system is used well. The organisation’s perception of Orchard as a supplier has been that they are quite remote, partly because they are based in Newcastle and also because of their attitude to communication and visits to Golding Homes. The meeting in August with Orchard Directors began with an apology about recent problems which had not been dealt with well. They have now appointed a new manager to lead their account management team and will be monitoring and reviewing this over the next few months. When the system was implemented staff received training and support from the supplier and the implementation team. As time has passed and staff change, knowledge of the system has become diluted. This can mean that staff are unaware of the best ways to use the system, partly because training is often done on a need to know basis by other members of the team. A number of the training issues made by staff have already been addressed by ICT staff, however a training programme will be needed on the new system as it rolls out, this will increase staff skills and overall knowledge of the system. Staff questionnaires raised a number of concerns about ArcHouse Plus. These included; slow performance, lack of user-friendliness and separate login from ArcHouse. Generally they would like to work to improve the system and receive more training on it. Whilst these comments are valid and can be addressed, few users who have been heavily involved in ArcHouse Plus work returned their forms, so a broader perspective may balance some of the comments. Orchard Housing runs on an updated Java and Progress platform which will improve performance and reliability, how much this will improve will be assessed once other sites have carried out the upgrade. The management group feel that due to the impact which the Orchard system has on operational performance, that SMT should consider how they need to engage with the future development of the system. It was suggested that the minutes of the Orchard Management group should be circulated to SMT and that attendance of one of the Directors at group meetings should be considered. The group of managers who have carried out this review include; Sarah Dey, Juliet Knott, David Woolmer, Eileen Parrott, Lisa Smith, Anne Chapman, Dennis Boon and Candace Bookal-Myles.

DRAFT


Recommendations and next steps The review has delivered a number of benefits;

Reduced costs and better value for money (direct savings of £7787.50) Operational managers are now more aware of the role which they and their

staff play in developing and improving the system Improved communication with Orchard

Feedback is now being provided to those who completed questionnaires via team meetings so that they are aware of actions being carried out and approximate timescales. The Orchard Management Group is currently considering whether there is a business case to upgrade to ArcHouse and ArcHouse Plus version 57 in October. This is a pre-requisite for the upgrade to Orchard Housing and will resolve an issue with the person database which was raised in the review. Future actions for the Orchard Management Group include the following;

• Considering how we can work better with Orchard as a supplier • Engaging and learning from other housing associations who use Orchard • Developing the role of the management group and engaging more with SMT • Continuing to challenge value for money delivered by our supplier • How much involvement is needed from operational staff who use the system • Improvements to training provided to staff on Orchard Housing • How the performance and reliability of ArcHouse Plus can be improved

Confirmation is now requested from SMT that they have noted the results of the review and the contents of this report and wish to proceed with planning the upgrade to Orchard Housing. Heather Nash, Head of ICT

DRAFT


5.4. Appendix 4 – SocITM Benchmarking and Application Register results. 5.4.1. SocITM Benchmarking Based on the survey for 2009 (2010 not yet available). In section 2, Service Availability: KPI 15 the report identifies how reliable the Leeds implementation of Orchard and associated systems has been in contrast to similar implementations or Orchard and other Housing Management systems by local authorities in England. All data in this report is encoded for confidentiality, but the SocITM reference for Leeds City Council was MD929. So in essence with this code it is possible to see how Leeds CC have competed with other authorities, but it isn’t possible to tell who those authorities are. At the top of page 42 there is a graph for availability of the corporate CRM system which identifies that LCC had 4 incidents during the year making the service unavailable for about 3 hours during normal working hours.

On page 41, a similar graph for Housing systems shows that Leeds had 6 different outages lasting all-in-all 17 hours. That again, is 17 hours of core time. If you add up all the time the systems where out for the 12 participants in the survey, it comes to 169 hours. that is an average of 14 hours. There is a total of 62 incidents, that gives an average of 5 incidents per year. LCC Average Incidents 6 5 Time 17hrs 14hrs Although this seems to indicate the LCC scores a little worse than average, it should be remembered that these figures are for 2008/2009 and a new system has gone in because it was identified at the time that the older system was becoming unreliable. It should also be remembered that these results are collated from an annual census response and there will be subject to some local variance as not all authorities will measure incidents in the same way. In broad terms though it does indicate that Leeds broadly comparable to other authorities.

DRAFT


5.4.2. SocITM Application Register. Based on the 2010 survey by SocITM and completed by over 200 local authorities on a voluntary basis, this table lists the housing management products currently in use by all the participating authorities, who the product was supplied by and when it was implemented. Whilst only a very simple tool, the details below clearly indicate that this particular product sector is quite stable, with the majority of responding organisations having owned and operated their housing management systems for 5 or more years. In addition the details also show that Orchard Information Systems current supply approx 14% of the market, a percentage broadly comparable with that of it’s competitors.

Body Product Supplier Status Date live

Aberdeen Universal Housing SDC Live 2007Aberdeenshire Universal Housing RAC 2005Aberdeenshire TSHE Paloma Systems Live 2005Alnwick TotalRepairs Orchard Live Angus TotalRepairs Orchard 1999Ashfield TotalRepairs Orchard 2004Aspire Housing Ltd TotalRepairs Orchard 1996Aylesbury Vale SX3/Bespoke Version

of their system Orchard Live

Aylesbury Vale SX3 Orchard Live Babergh Simdell Orchard Live 2001Barnet Simdell Orchard Live Basildon SERVITOR Orchard Live Bexley SDC Orchard Live 1998Birmingham Saffron Housing Orchard In

progress

Blaenau Gwent Saffron Housing Orchard 1997Blyth Valley Saffron Housing Orchard Live 2003Bolton Saffron Orchard Live 1999Bracknell Forest Saffron Orchard Live 2004Bracknell Forest Saffron Orchard Braintree Saffron Orchard Live 1999Brent Saffron Orchard Live 199?Bridgend Saffron Orchard Live 2001Brighton and Hove Saffron Orchard Live 1995Bristol QL Orchard Live 2002Broadland Public Sector Orchard In

progress

Bromley Paloma Systems Orchard Live 2004Broxtowe Orchard Orchard 2004Bury Orchard Orchard 1997Cambridge Orchard Orchard Canterbury Orchard Orchard 1996Carmarthenshire Orchard Orchard Live 1999

DRAFT


Castle Morpeth Orchard Orchard Live Castle Point Orchard Orchard Live 1999Castle Point Orchard Orchard 2004Chelmsford Orchard Northgate Historical 2002Cheltenham OPENHousing Northgate Live Cheshire East OPENHousing Northgate 1997Cheshire West OPENHousing Northgate 2004Chester-le-Street OPENHousing Northgate Live City of London OPENHousing Northgate Live 2004Clackmannanshire OPENHousing Northgate Live 1996Cosmopolitan Housing Group

OPENHousing Northgate 2001

Cottsway Housing OPENHousing Northgate 1999Coventry OHMS Northgate Live 1996Crawley OHMS Northgate Live Darlington Northgate Housing Northgate 1993Darlington Northgate Housing Northgate Live Daventry Northgate Housing Northgate Live Denbighshire Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2007Derby Northgate Housing Northgate Live Derwentside Northgate Housing Northgate Live Doncaster Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2000Dudley Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2005Durham City Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2003Easington Northgate Housing Northgate Live East Ayrshire Northgate Housing Northgate 1998East Devon Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2004East Lindsey Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2004East Lothian Northgate Housing Northgate Live 1994East Renfrewshire Northgate Housing Northgate Live 1998Eastlands Homes Partnership Limited

Northgate Housing Northgate 2005

Eden Housing Association


Edinburgh Northgate Housing Northgate Live Elmbridge Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2004Enfield Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2006Enfield Northgate Housing Northgate Live 2006Epping Forest Northgate Housing Northgate Live 1999Exeter Northgate Housing Northgate 2003fch Housing and Care Northgate Housing Northgate 2002Flintshire Northgate Housing Northgate Gallions Housing Association


Gateshead Northgate Northgate Live 2003Gosport Northgate Northgate 2002Great Places Housing Group

Northgate Northgate 2001

Great Yarmouth Northgate Northgate Live 1995Greenwich Northgate Northgate Live 1993

DRAFT


Greenwich Northgate Northgate Live 1997Guildford Northgate Northgate Live Hackney MIS Active

Management Systems ltd.

Northgate

Hackney MIS Northgate Live 1999Hackney iWorld Northgate Live 1999Hammersmith & Fulham

iWorld Northgate Live

Hammersmith & Fulham

iWorld Northgate In progress

2005

Haringey IWORLD Northgate Live 1996Harrow Iworld Northgate Live 2000Harvest Housing Group In-house solution MIS Active

Management Systems ltd.

2004

Hastings In-house solution MIS Live 2004Havering In-house solution Midas Havering In-house solution In-house Live 2004High Peak In-house solution In-house 1999High Peak In-house solution In-house Live 1999Hillingdon INHOUSE In-house Live 1999Hillingdon Information Systems In-house Live Hillingdon IHMS In-house Live HomeZone IBS OpenHouse IBS 1998Hounslow IBS Open Housing IBS Live Hounslow IBS (Open Housing) IBS Live HVHS Housing Group IBS - Open Housing IBS 1998Ipswich IBS IBS Islington IBS IBS Live Islington IBS IBS Live 1996Kennet IBS IBS Live Kensington & Chelsea IBS Fujitsu Live Kettering IBS Fujitsu Live 2004Kingston upon Thames IBS Consilium Live Knowsley IBS Consilium In

progress 2005

Knowsley Housing Trust

Housing Consilium 2005

Lancaster CTX 5 Consilium Live 2003Leeds CTX - Comino-Civica 2005Leeds ConSol Comino-Civica Live 2001Leicester Comino Comino-Civica Live Lewisham Comino Comino-Civica Live Magna Housing Group Civica Comino-Civica 2006Maidstone Capita Comino-Civica Live 2006Manchester Capita Comino-Civica Live 2000Mansfield Capita Comino-Civica Live 1997Margaret Blackwood Housing assoc

Business Objects Comino-Civica 1999

DRAFT


Medway Bespoke Ingres development/Prawl

Comino-Civica Live

Mendip Aurora Comino In progress

Merton ArcHouse Comino Live Metropolitan Housing Partnership

ArcHouse Comino 1994

Midlothian ArcHouse Comino 2008Milton Keynes ArcHouse Comino Newark and Sherwood ArcHouse Comino Live Newark and Sherwood ArcHouse Civica Live Newcastle upon Tyne ArcHouse Civica Live 2005Newcastle upon Tyne ArcHouse Civica Live 2005Newham ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2005Newham ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2005Newport ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2004North Ayrshire ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2004North East Derbyshire ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2004North Hertdfordshire Homes Ltd

ArcHouse Capita IBS 1997

North Lanarkshire ArcHouse Capita IBS 2000North Lincolnshire ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 1997North Tyneside ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 1998North Tyneside ArcHouse Capita IBS Live Northampton ArcHouse Capita IBS Live 2007Northern Counties ArcHouse Capita IBS 1994Northern Ireland Housing Executive

arcHouse Capita 1993

Nottingham Apex Capita 2002Oldham Anite Housing Capita 2006Oldham Anite Housing Capita Live 2004Origin Group Anite Housing Capita 2005Oxford Citizens Housing Association

Anite Housing Capita 2005

Pembrokeshire Anite Housing Capita Perth & Kinross Anite Housing Capita 2005Plus Housing Anite Housing Capita 2006Poole Anite Housing Capita Live RB Housing Trust Anite Housing Capita 2003Reading Anite Housing Capita 2009Reading Anite Housing Capita Live 2004Redbridge Anite Housing Capita Live 2006Rhondda Cynon Taff Anite Housing Capita Richmond upon Thames

Anite Housing Capita Current

Richmondshire Anite Housing Capita Live Rotherham Anite Housing Capita Live 1995Rugby Anite Housing Capita Live 2006Sedgefield Anite Housing Capita Live Sedgemoor Anite Housing Business Objects 1991

DRAFT


Sefton Anite Housing Anite Live 2001Sheffield Anite Housing Anite Live 2000South Ayrshire Anite Housing Anite Live South Cambridgeshire Anite Housing Anite 1996South Kesteven Anite Housing Anite Live 2004South Lakeland Anite Housing Anite Live 1999Southwark Anite Housing Anite Live Stockton-on-Tees Anite Housing Anite 1999Stockton-on-Tees Anite Housing Anite Live 1999Stroud Anite Housing Anite Live Sutton Anite Housing Anite Live 2004Tamworth Anite Housing Anite 1999Tandridge Anite Housing Anite Live 1998Tandridge Anite Housing Anite 1998Tandridge Anite Housing Anite Live 2000Teesdale Anite Housing Anite Live Thanet Anite Housing Anite 2008The Community Housing Group

Anite Housing Anite 2001

Threshold Group Anite Housing Anite 1997Torfaen Anite Housing Anite Live 1996Torridge Anite Housing Anite Live 2004Tower Hamlets Anite Housing Anite Live Tower Hamlets Anite Housing Anite Live Tunbridge Wells Anite Housing Anite Live Uttlesford Anite Housing Anite 2005Vale of Glamorgan Anite Housing Anite Live 1997Vale Royal Anite Housing Anite Live 2006Wakefield and District Housing

Anite Housing Anite 2005

Walsall Housing Group Anite Housing Anite 2003Waltham Forest Anite Anite Live Waltham Forest Anite Anite Live Warrington Housing Association

Academy Housing Anite 2003

Wear Valley Academy Housing Anite Live 2003Welwyn Hatfield Academy Housing Anite Live 1999West Dorset Academy Housing Anite In

progress

West Dunbartonshire Academy Housing Anite Live 2008West Lancashire Academy Housing Anite 1997West Lothian Academy Housing Anite Live Westlea Housing Association


Westminster Academy Housing Anite Live Whitefriars Academy Housing Anite 1997Willow Park Housing Trust


Windsor and Maidenhead

Academy Housing Anite Live 2004

DRAFT


Wirral Methodist HA Academy Housing Aareon 1998Worthing Academy Housing Aareon Live Worthing Homes Academy Housing Aareon 2007Wrekin Housing Trust Academy Housing Aareon 2001Wrexham Aareon Aareon Live 2010

Date post:	21-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Orchard Value for Money Assessment Overview of Approach ... · The Housing Management Systems...

Documents