Federation and Shared Services Development

City College Norwich
Federation & Shared Services Development

Supported by AoC

1. Introduction – How the project came about
Background
As far back as 2008 City College Norwich established a subcommittee of its Governing Body - the
Partnership and Federations Committee, whose brief was to develop a strategy in response to a number
of changes in the education sphere but, in particular, to the introduction of Academies by the then
Labour Government.

At that time City College Norwich had over 1,000 14-16 year olds from local schools studying one or two
days per week, over 4,000 full-time 16-18 year olds, and had taken the lead within a local partnership of
five schools, Open Opportunity, in the development of collaborative bids to deliver the new diplomas.
The bids were very successful, and the College and Open Opportunity developed into one of the
country’s largest deliverers of the new diplomas.

Secondary education in Norfolk overall had GCSE scores well below the national average and some of
its schools were in the bottom 10% nationally. Earlham High School for example was the fourth worst
performing school in the country, with a 5 A*-C score of 6%. As a failing school, Earlham was in a prime
position to be converted to an Academy under the rules as they then stood, supported by a number of
sponsors including a lead sponsor. The College took the lead in the development to convert Earlham
into an Academy and became the lead sponsor – City Academy Norwich opened its doors in 2009 as an
independent Academy.

As the Academy movement flourished, first under the Labour Government and then accelerated under
the Coalition Government, it quickly became clear that Colleges had to have a response in order to
protect the integrity of their vocational provision, to continue to improve outcomes for students and to
remain competitive in the market for 16-18 year olds. City College Norwich’s response was to look into
the possibility of creating a federation comprising secondary schools, FE Colleges, primary schools, and
possibly private training providers and a University Technical College, (UTC), should the College be
successful in bidding for one. A fundamental component of the federation was to be a shared services
company which would deliver all of the non-teaching related activities for all organisations within the
federation. This was in order to remove from the Academics the “heavy lifting” associated with the
delivery of services allowing them to focus on improving students’ education at all levels, giving more of
them the opportunity to progress to Higher Education (HE) and employment.

The College was then successful in obtaining funds from the Efficiency Innovation Fund (EIF), managed
by the Association of Colleges (AoC) to carry out a feasibility study, the results of which led to the
successful bid for more substantial funding to create the federation with a shared services company at its
heart (see appendix 1).

(www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment)

City College Norwich 2

2. The Plan
The feasibility study or business case (see link appendices 2, 3 and 4) (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/
citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment) clearly indicated that services could be delivered much
more effectively and efficiently via a single company, bringing together College and school staff, than
had previously been the case under the auspices of the local authority. This meant that a better service
could be provided at less cost and that any savings made could be ploughed back into educational
delivery in order to help improve student performance. This would be achieved via a rationalisation of
services and staff over time with better procurement being key to any early savings.

The implementation plan in the business case contains more detail on the original intentions and needs
to be read in conjunction with this document. The key implications of the proposal are given below.

2.1 Original Proposal

To create a legally compliant federation comprising:

• City College Norwich (CCN) (an existing statutory corporation) itself potentially comprising
CCN Higher Education Centre (HE) (a proposed limited subsidiary company)

CCN Vocational/Technical Institute (FE) (a proposed limited subsidiary company)
CCN Sixth Form College (A Levels) (a proposed limited subsidiary company)
• City Academy Norwich (CAN) (an existing limited company)
• ayland Community High School (at the time local authority controlled but with Academy
W
status pending; proposed limited company from September 2011)
• Norfolk University Technical College (UTC) (UTC application pending approval; proposed
limited company from September 2011)
• manufacturing and electrical training provider - an existing limited company
A
• Shared Services Company (proposed limited company)

The two key elements of the plan were the creation of (1) the federation, and (2) the shared
services company, and each had different emphases.

2.2 Creating the Federation
The creation of the federation was seen essentially as a legal process taking up to a year and involving
the establishment of each of the above entities as separate companies, except for City Academy Norwich
which was already an independent company. The College was also an independent company but the
proposal was to split it into three organisations (see appendix 5).



2.3 Creating the Shared Services Company
The creation of the shared services company would require not only a change in legal status for many
individuals but also their actual movement from one organisation to another via TUPE transfer. It was
envisaged to be a more sensitive matter, particularly as new academy staff would first have to be TUPEd
into the Academy from the local authority. The plan therefore was not to TUPE these staff twice in close
succession. Please refer to section 5.

3. Creating the Federation
(for a more detailed breakdown of this section please see appendix 6)

Original Vision for the Federation
As the College was driving the process, it was initially envisaged that the College would be the lead
organisation, establishing a new body for governance of the federation in addition to having its own
corporation board. Over time this approach proved unpopular as it tended to be seen as a College take-
over, rather than the creation of a group of equal partners in the development of the education of Norfolk
people (see appendix 7). (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment)

Structure of a Parent Company
This eventually led to the creation of a parent company called Transforming Education in Norfolk (TEN)
but not before many months had been spent by the College’s lawyers negotiating with two Government
departments (the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (BIS)) on modifications to the Instruments and Articles of Governance, not all of which was
wasted. At this point, however, the College still required the signature of two Secretaries of State to
approve any changes. Progress was slow.

Then in December 2011 the Government’s newly proposed freedoms and flexibilities became law
and the requirement to get the Secretary of States’ approval was removed. Things began to move
forward slightly more quickly. The problem now was that no precedents existed for newly constituted
Instruments and Articles so the departments weren’t entirely sure exactly what they should contain, but
departmental approval was still required.

The departments were clear that consultation should take place between the College and its
communities to confirm support for its proposals (see appendix 8) (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/
citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment). When the College asked for guidance in relation to which
particular communities it should consult with, the departments said that it was up to the College to
decide – but that they would be sure to inform us if they thought our choice inappropriate.

The College
Around this time, following advice from KPMG, it was decided not to split the College into three
separate entities as it would create a plethora of complications in terms of dealing with VAT (see
appendix 9) (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment) . However,
the College continued with its plans to create a separate HE Centre at a new location, for delivery to its
1,500 HE students, as this was thought still to be an appropriate response to the Government’s proposals
relating to fees, loans and (HEFCE) funding.


The Academies – Wayland Academy came into being on 1 March 2012
Sponsored by City College Norwich in full knowledge that the federation was being established, which
its head and governors viewed as an added incentive. It became the first member of Norfolk Academies
Trust and all future Academies joining the federation will sit within this Trust. The Trust was established,
along the lines of many Academy trusts, immediately prior to Wayland becoming an Academy.

The UTC
Application had been successful (May 2012) and negotiations began with the Baker Dearing Trust in
relation to the opening date – eventually September 2014 was agreed upon. City Academy Norwich was
in its third year of operation as an Academy and could not sit within Norfolk Academies Trust as it was
set up under different regulations with a number of sponsors.

The Parent Group
Transforming Education in Norfolk – the parent group, TEN, was established during the summer term
of 2012 and naturally it was anticipated that it would be the owner of the shared services company.
However this turned out to not be possible due to the regulations of the Local Government Pension
Scheme (LGPS). Of itself, TEN has no direct income and no reserves, and is therefore not in a position to
underwrite the pensions of all those staff to be transferred into the shared services company.

Local Government Pension Scheme – impact on the parent group
There are two ways in which a company can become a member of the LGPS, either as an admitted body
or as a wholly owned company. To be an admitted body the shared services company would need to
be able to underwrite the pensions of its staff and, like TEN, it has no direct income and no reserves, so
this was not possible. The only alternative was to be wholly owned by a company with the resources to
underwrite LGPS pensions and the only organisation within TEN that could do that was the College.
After some to-ing and fro-ing it was finally agreed that a controlling shareholding of 51% would be
owned by the College and 49% by TEN. Staff pensions were now safe (see appendix 10) (www.aoc.
co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment).

4. Creating the Shared Services Company
The key consideration when establishing a new company, apart from its name, is what sort of company
does it need to be? The shared services company has been given the name Norfolk Educational Services
Ltd (NES) as it was envisaged that, at some point, substantial services would be sold outside the
federation so it would have a wider target market within Norfolk.

The question of what type of company it should be was much more complex and the key issues were:

• Mutualisation – staff involvement/ownership
• Community Interest Company v Limited Company
• Teckal

Mutualisation – the College recruited the Baxi Partnership to set out various ways of involving staff in
the ownership of the company and getting staff buy-in, most of which had their attractions. Although
this route was not in the end selected, for reasons given below, this is still an option going forward if
circumstances were to change. In the end staff buy-in has not been a problem within ex- College staff


but there has been some resistance from ex-Academy staff who tend to see the whole process as a take-
over, something which we’ve been keen to counter (see appendix 11) (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/
citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment).

CIC / Ltd Co. – the main reason for opting for limited company status was flexibility although
discussions were lengthy. The main function of NES is to deliver better services more cheaply and
make savings or profit - whatever it’s called; the important thing is what can be done with it. A private
limited company can invest it and/or pay dividends to shareholders in proportions that it decides. At its
simplest, in the case of NES this simply means gift-aiding the profit (avoiding corporation tax) to TEN
for re-distribution within the federation. In fact it is not quite this simple because making a profit out of
Academies (savings) in this way is not allowed so certain charges have to be agreed instead. So moving
the money around the group is possible.

In the case of a Community Interest Company, all profits have to be returned to the participating
company in a proportion equal to that of its original stake. As we envisaged making investment
decisions based on the needs of individual organisations, rather than on the amount of money they
originally invested, this option was not chosen.

Teckal – this is not something that any of the team had heard of before starting along this path but it
proved to be an important consideration. Teckal is a European company which brought a case to the
European courts in relation to tendering for services inside and outside federations of companies. The
courts ruled that if a company sells services outside its own federated bodies, business for which it
competes on the open market, using the same staff as those used to deliver inside the federation, then
it must put those services delivered inside the federation out to competitive tender, i.e. it will have to
compete for the business of delivering services inside the group and of course it might not win. One
way around this is to set up different companies with different people, one delivering services inside the
federation, the other outside. However, current advice suggests that no legal intervention will occur if
the volume of income earned outside the group is less than 5% of the company’s total turnover. (www.
aoc.co.uk/shared-services/materials/legal)

Nevertheless it is entirely possible that there are Colleges with large volumes of commercial income
who are already delivering services both inside and outside a group structure of sufficient volume to
cause concern, so this is a point to watch. As for NES, service volumes delivered outside the federation
are currently very small but with an aspiration to grow this arm of the business a company called TEN
Commercial Services has been created to provide the capacity for substantial delivery outside the group.

Agreements and Contracts – all organisations within the federation have had to pass a motion with
their governing bodies agreeing to join the federation. In addition they have all had to sign a Service
Agreement with NES for the supply of services (not a service level agreement) covering a five year
period which sets out the legal relationship between them, in particular in relation to pension liabilities
and penalties for withdrawing early from the agreement. This is essential as NES has no income other
than what it receives from the member organisations on an annual basis, nor does it have reserves to
cover pension deficits. It will, however, be responsible for pension liabilities for staff TUPEd into the
company from the date of transfer.


5. Norfolk Education Services’ Staff
TUPE of Staff – Pension issues
It would be easy to say that all NES staff were TUPEd from their original employer to NES on 1
September 2012 - but it would not be true. Yet again pensions reared its head. We managed to resolve the
issues related to the LGPS, but the teachers’ pension scheme (TPS) is of a different order. As it is funded
centrally from the Treasury it simply is not transferable under any circumstances, which means that if
staff TUPE transfer to a non-teaching organisation the pension cannot be taken with them.

Not many staff were in this position (four to be exact - all College staff, two of whom were the
Chief Executive and the Managing Director, both ex-teachers) so another work around had to be
found. The simplest solution was to second these staff to NES from the College for a period of five
years, so secondment agreements had to be drawn up in order to protect the pensions of staff in the
TPS. Fortunately the transfer of the other 285 staff went more smoothly, technically, but there were
complications.

TUPE Transfers
Key points to note in relation to TUPE are:-

• clear in the measures letter; ensure that you state exactly what will change for staff members.
Be
• Communicate in advance, and often, with the relevant Unions.
• Prepare staff lists well in advance, keep a central list.

FE Colleges tend to have job roles within defined departmental responsibilities. It’s a moot point how
often these are updated but generally they cover roughly the right area; not so for Academies/secondary
schools. Staff in Academies and schools do have Job Descriptions of course but often they bear no
resemblance to the duties carried out at all. Colleges are in the main departmental; Academies work like
family businesses where everyone “mucks in”. This is not a criticism as it is probably the most effective
way of working for a small single organisation, but it makes considerations relating to who to TUPE to
where quite difficult.

In addition, this will impact on who should transfer to the shared services company and who shouldn’t
– it depends entirely on what they do and if the paperwork is unreliable it will cause problems. The best
option is to speak to each individual and their managers, and keep your own record of what duties they
carry out.

The other important realisation is that as long as other Academies are joining the group, at some point in
the very near future restructures will have to be carried out as, although it may be the most effective and
efficient way to run a single Academy, it almost certainly will not be that for a group of them.

For further information relating to TUPE processes and examples of letters please see appendix 12
(www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment).

Please note: This guide does not replace the requirement for detailed legal advice on the transfer,
and Colleges should obtain independent advice on their specific transfer. Circumstances around
LGPS need to be fully checked independently for each organisation wanting to go down this route.


6. IT Systems
The biggest practical challenge in setting up a federation is IT systems. Each major software product
has had to be re-examined for suitability for federation use and federation cost. We recognised from the
outset that the Service Management and HR systems were not fit for purpose in a federation environment,
so new systems were tendered and purchased quite early on in the process and continue to undergo
implementation module by module.

However, negotiation with the company supplying our finance system did not go to plan so the decision
was made to replace it with a new system. This was not our preferred option but in order to make sure we
had a system which could cope with multiple entities there was no alternative – the finance system was
tendered and a product selected in the summer with a full implementation date of June 2013. Following
further negotiation and the commitment to provide additional resource internally, this was revised to
February 2013. This additional internal resource comprised at least one person working full-time on the
project.

In addition, having all of these brand new systems is pointless unless all members of the federation can
access the appropriate parts of them. As the HR, finance and student record systems data are managed by
NES, we have embarked on the establishment of an integrated communications infrastructure which will
give all federation members access to their data from those systems on their desktop. This is a much more
complicated task than it sounds and we are still encountering difficulties with it. However, access to all
major IT systems for all federation members is scheduled to be in place by the end of April 2013.

If that were not sufficient, we have also embarked on a project to build a data warehouse which will
facilitate the development of reports from multiple systems. This is seen as a pre-requisite for the effective
and efficient use of resources across the federation. It will, for example, allow reports to be produced
instantaneously using data from the finance, HR and student records systems. Currently phase 1 of this
project has been completed which is the incorporation of the College’s student records data for the last
two years. Phase 2 will pull in College HR data, and phase 3 will be a project involving the Academies
and student tracking.

At the same time, investigation has led us to the conclusion that all Academies within the federation must
use the same student record system to enable streamlining of data management and reporting, and to
standardise training and development needs. A single solution has been selected but currently only one
Academy is using this software so we are embarking on a staff development programme in preparation
for the introduction of this software to at least one and possibly two Academies by the end of March 2013,
before timetabling for 2013/14 begins.

The key point here is that effective management of data within the federation is dependent on the data
being accurate, available and structured in a way that is meaningful to users. Having a number of
Academies within the federation for example will allow accurate measurement of performance across
a range of key indicators which will in turn enable academic leaders to examine and compare their
performance, and learn from best practice.

In terms of managing IT operations, advice was sought from a consultant and the ensuing report is
attached (see appendix 13) (www.aoc.co.uk/shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment).
This is a very useful report providing clear guidance on what an IT operating model could look like.
However, NES has a lot of work to do before anything else can be achieved.


7. So What Have We Got?
We have created a fully functioning federation with, currently, seven member organisations:

• Transforming Education in Norfolk (parent company)
• City College Norwich
• City Academy Norwich
• Wayland Academy
• Norfolk University Technical College (opening Sept. 2014)
• Norfolk Educational Services
• TEN Commercial Services

All non-teaching-related services are being delivered by NES, either directly or through contracted-out
services. One further secondary school has voted to join the group and a second will be putting the case
to its governing body shortly. A number of primary schools have expressed an interest but there are no
firm proposals at the moment. The private training provider did not proceed to join the group, but the
legal framework has provision for this to occur at any time in the future.

The TEN Group’s Federation model provides for an educational pathway from the start of primary
education, through secondary, with options including the University Technical College (14-19); post-16
opportunities also sit within City Academy’s Sixth Form, the College’s Sixth Form Centre, the College’s
vocational and technical offer including apprenticeships, adult education and HE – a ‘cradle to grave’
offer for all those within the “family” should they desire it.


Implementation Timeline
Sep 11 - Nov 11 Establish programme direction, structure and resources
Complete Federation Memoranda of Understanding
Implement procurement strategy including determination of in-house and
outsourced models
Plan phased integration of services
Determine service delivery model
Establish account management; demand management; service planning; service
management; and supplier relationship management models
Establish shared services company
Implement finance system upgrade
Start process mapping and improvement
Plan soft federation product and services portfolio
Engage with UTC project team
Tender HR and CAFM systems upgrades

Dec 11 – Feb 12 Roll-out additional services to City Academy Norwich
Establish legal federation
Procurement programme continues
Continue process mapping, standardisation and improvement
Implement HR system upgrade
Market soft federation product and services portfolio
Plan UTC product and service provision

Mar 12 – May 12 Roll-out services to Wayland
Procurement programme continues
Implement CAFM system
Norfolk Academies Trust created
Wayland Academy up and running, TUPE complete
Deliver soft federation product and services portfolio
Procure UTC product and service provision
Application submitted for VAT Group (three months to complete)

Jun 12 – Aug 12 Implement UTC product and service provision
Deliver Year 1 procurement target
Deliver soft federation product and services portfolio
Plan Year 2 implementation based on progress to date
Shared Services company set up
Pension admission status in place with Norfolk Pension Fund
Bank accounts in place for all entities in the group
New payroll system (Midland iTrent) launched
Tender concluded for new finance system
1 Sept 2012 Go live with Norfolk Educational Services
Oct 2012 Finance restructure completed
Oct 2012 – Feb 2013 New finance system (Open Accounts) goes live


8. Expectations
Procurement savings in year 1 are expected to reach £175k, mainly through the re-tendering of large
contracts such as insurance, catering and grounds maintenance (see appendix 15) (www.aoc.co.uk/
shared-services/citycollegenorwich-federationdevelopment).

Payroll savings have been made but the requirement to re-engineer the workforce to fit a new delivery
model will need additional resource in the short term. Currently payroll savings of £100k have
been made simply through non-replacement of vacancies and a further £75k will be made through
restructuring in the near future. However some of this saving will need to be used over the next six
months.

In year 2 we anticipate procurement savings of £300k, including savings on cleaning of £50k and
Multifunctional Devices (printing, photocopying and paper) of £45k. At present cleaning is carried out
by a number of different companies across the federation. By bringing them together under one supplier,
economies of scale will drive efficiencies and result in lower costs.

The Federation is committed to reducing its reliance on paper by 5% (££s) by restructuring the use of
machines and sourcing paper from alternative suppliers.

As the Federation continues to grow, staff restructures will continue and although there are and will be
redundancy and pension strain costs, there will be further savings on staff.

We are also targeting minimum savings of 5% per annum on other cost efficiencies.

9. Culture Change
Of all of the issues that arise from the formation of a Federation and the associated operational
requirements relating to the delivery of services, culture change is the most difficult to manage.
Undoubtedly new things will be asked of some member organisations and they will question why these
things are necessary. It is, therefore, very important to ensure that communication is very clear and that
sufficient time is given for acclimatisation to any such new approaches. Some areas of potential difficulty
are discussed below.

9.1 Change Management
Working Practices – the biggest single shock to those from a College background when working with
colleagues in the secondary sector is the absence of performance management. Immediately, the most
popular service provided is HR advice and, in particular, dealing with staffing issues as the level
of support now provided far outstrips that previously provided by the local authority. Apart from
support for individual staffing issues, which may have existed for years and not been dealt with, the
concept of managing staff on a day-to-day basis is also absent. There are cases where staff refuse to do
what is asked of them which is clearly unacceptable within a new shared services company such as
Norfolk Educational Services, but is something which has gone unchallenged in the past. Instilling a
culture of proper line management responsibility does cause friction in some but other staff respond
to it well, which might be seen as remarkable considering they are quite possibly in the same seat in


the same office of the same building they have worked in for years, close to staff who have not been
TUPE transferred into a new company and who are still working in the way they always have. It is very
important therefore to start the idea of developing and building high performing teams early on in the
process.

It is soon evident, however, that secondary Academies and FE Colleges are very different beasts.
Colleges do appear to be much more straightforward in terms of standard business practices – they have
HR departments with lots of policies and procedures which apply across the board. The academies,
however, have always operated according to local authority policies and procedures but each appears to
have its own interpretation of them and no-one seems to check whether they are being adhered to until
something goes wrong. There are, for example, a number of anomalies relating to the operation of non-
teaching staff contracts and ways of working:

• Taking sick leave to look after children instead of leave or losing pay (also applies to teachers)
• Full-time contract but work term-time only
• Contracts of term-time plus five weeks but “make up” the five weeks during term-time with no
record of this being kept

Our advice to managers who’ve had staff TUPEd into their organisation from a different kind is to look,
listen and learn for the first three months. However, anomalies like the ones above cannot be allowed to
go on for too long as inequalities exist between staff doing very similar jobs. Six months is a reasonable
period to wait before starting to make changes different from those identified in the measures letter
produced for the TUPE process, bearing in mind that newly proposed changes must not relate to the
TUPE process itself.

9.2 Professional Compliance
Under local authority control Academies appear to have been sheltered from the regulatory framework
relating to compliance as it is applied in FE. Health Safety, Data Protection, Freedom of Information
and Risk Management are all areas with potentially serious consequences if not handled professionally
and yet they are, at best, hardly considered or, at worst, totally absent from Academies.

Even internal and external audit are not concepts with which most Academies are familiar. Financial
reports to governing bodies in the past were fairly simple bookkeeping exercises relating to income and
expenditure but as Academies they have responsibility for assets such as buildings, land and equipment,
and suddenly they are hit with depreciation costs which can be substantial, particularly if there is a new
building.

Academy Trusts are required to have an Audit Committee but they are not required to appoint internal
auditors as long as board directors are satisfied that assurance has been provided in other ways.
However it is difficult to envisage a federation involving an FE College not appointing internal auditors
in relation to learner records and funding for all members. All members will also have to undergo
external audit of their finances and this level of scrutiny is new to Academies.

The difficulty arises when charging for these compliance-related services, as Academies have not
had to pay for them in the past, don’t really understand why they have to have them now and, even
worse, they might suddenly have to start finding additional money to pay for improvements based on
the findings.


10. Conclusion
Benefits - the benefits of creating a shared services company within a Federation of educational
organisations are very clear:

• those organisations previously served by local authorities the quality of services provided will
In
almost certainly improve in the short term without operating much differently.
• Savings will be made through increased buying power and more effective procurement, again
particularly in the short term.
• Savings will be made through economies of scale as more organisations join the federation.
• Excellent staff will be found among those TUPE transferred into the company.
• Job opportunities will arise for the right people.
• There is an opportunity to provide services outside the federation to make a profit to be redistributed
within the group.
• The academic organisations can focus on providing an improved education service and students will
have better outcomes.
• Better and more in-depth reporting on aspects of organisational performance across all members will
highlight areas of best practice and provide indicators of areas to be looked at more closely.

Key Challenges – there will be many challenges relating to day to day operations but the key ones
relating to establishing an effective and efficient company are:

• Culture, performance management and working practices
• VAT
• Pensions
• Fit for purpose IT infrastructure and systems
• Managing budgets and service charges
• Preparations for TUPE
• Legal frameworks for organisations and relationships between them
• Managing initial expectations in member organisations
• Commercial Transfer Agreements for Academies – delays in agreeing with local authorities

The challenges are tough ones but mainly shorter term and we remain convinced that they will be
outweighed by the longer term benefits. Further challenges will of course ensue and fairly quickly as
the immediate gain in quality of service, due to being a new provider, will rapidly diminish unless close
attention is paid to continuous improvement – the bar will continue to be raised.


List of Annexes
Annex 1 Proposed Federation Structure

Annex 2 NES Ltd Articles of Association

Annex 3 Development of the Federation Public Consultation Document

Annex 4 TEN Group Articles of Association

Annex 5 CCN Instruments and Articles of Government

Annex 6 CAN Memorandum of Association

Annex 7 Norfolk Academies Articles of Association

Annex 8 Norfolk UTC Articles of Association

Annex 9 Development of the Federation Public Consultation Document

Annex 10 Template Measures Letter to be Sent from New Employer to the Head
of Transferring Organisation

Annex 11 Template letter to be Sent to Appropriate Representatives of Affected Employees

Annex 12 Information to Staff it is Proposed to Transfer

Annex 13 Example Frequently Asked Questions

Annex 14 Example of Brainstorm of Team Regarding Operational Issue on Transfer

Annex 15 Letter Confirming Transfer to New Organisation

Annex 16 Example of Objection Letter for Member of TPS

Annex 17 Example Secondment Letter for TPS Member Working in Organisations Unable
to Offer TPS

Annex 18 Template Secondment Agreement

Annex 19 Letter to Transferred Staff re Proof of Eligilibility to Work in UK


List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Proposal for Collaboration and Shared Services Grant

Appendix 2 Federation Shared Services Project - Business Case

Appendix 3 Federation Shared Services Programme - Resourcing Options

Appendix 4 Shared Services Company Creation Options Paper

Appendix 5 Proposed Federation Structure

Appendix 6 Federation Timeline

Appendix 7 CCN Instruments and Articles of Government

Appendix 8 Development of the Federation Public Consultation Document

Appendix 9 KPMG Federation Structure Tax Risks and Opportunities

Appendix 10 Advice from NPF

Appendix 11 Baxipartnership Employee Ownership in a Shared Services Company

Appendix 12 Learning Points and Transfer Checklist

Appendix 13 Possible IT Operating Model for Norfolk Educational Services

Appendix 14 Federation Struture - TEN Group

Appendix 15 Shared Services for Procurement - Route Map


Association of Colleges
2-5 Stedham Place
London
WC1A 1HU
Telephone: 020 7034 9900
Facsimile: 020 7034 9950
Email: sharedservices@aoc.co.uk

Or visit our web site
www.aoc.co.uk

Federation and Shared Services Development

More Related Content

Similar to Federation and Shared Services Development (20)

More from Association of Colleges (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Federation and Shared Services Development