Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 9
9
Accepted
Users and stakeholders report insufficient HMCTS engagement and inefficient common platform design and rollout.
Conclusion
However, users including court staff and stakeholders, still feel that HMCTS’s engagement with them has not been sufficient, especially during the rollout of common platform. We received written evidence from the Bar Council, which told us that as far as it was concerned, the designers and producers of the common platform appeared to have a limited understanding of working needs and practices, and “displayed a marked reluctance for the system to be designed in conjunction with, and for the benefit of, professional court users”.16 It similarly told us that the systems that have been put in place do not work efficiently, and appeared to have been designed “in a vacuum rather than with a proper understanding of how those who use the court actually work”. It explained that in designing the new systems, HMCTS had not, for example, shadowed advocates, court staff and judges to see the systems in operation. Overall, it asserted that the roll out of the common platform was “widely perceived” as a failure, and that court users had struggled to log onto the system, there were doubts about the design of the platform, there was little information on take-up by those who were supposed to use the system, and guidance was of insufficient quality to meet the needs of users.17
Government Response Summary
The government states it has improved the Common Platform by overhauling its staff feedback process, introducing new digital forms, senior management sponsors, webinars, and increased staff involvement, alongside ongoing engagement with user groups and partners.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation Recommendation implemented 2.2 The decision to adjust the timetable for delivering new Common Platform functionality came directly from listening to and responding to feedback. 2.3 The Crime Programme overhauled its staff feedback process to introduce: • a new digital form with clear service level agreements; • senior management team sponsors for each HMCTS region; • feedback data and outcomes made available to all staff; • monthly feedback webinars and weekly updates to report on action taken; and • greater staff involvement in directly prioritising and resolving issues. 2.4 The programme will continue working with user focus-groups for efficient prioritisation of fixes and real-time feedback on changes, while maintaining regular engagement with trade unions to discuss plans and gather suggestions for improvement. 2.5 The programme continues to facilitate regular forums and engagement opportunities with partners including the judiciary, police, Legal Aid Agency, Probation and Prison Service, and the Crown Prosecution Service. Defence practitioners can now attend two drop-in sessions every week to get answers to issues, alongside regular additional sessions to give feedback on functionality. 2.6 In the Civil Family and Tribunals (CFT) Programme, a new post go-live implementation support framework is used to ensure staff and judicial office holders are being supported, particularly in the immediate days and weeks following the release of new functionality. This includes the collation of feedback via multiple channels and post go-live webinars to hear more about the functionality and new ways of working, with question-and-answer sessions enabling those responsible to respond to feedback and queries.