tify families and monitor progress against outcomes and don’t necessarily want to lose this but they also don’t want to duplicate or overlap what the future reporting requirements are going to be. • Reporting teams often the find out when changes have already been proposed and feel left out of discussions. • System support teams are sometimes not included in the planning stages and are then asked to make things work at short notice, these changes are huge and cannot just be designed well in the current CMS systems. • The potential wasted effort and impact on front line services if we redesign our CMS now only for the supplier to make more fundamental changes downstream. • Guidance for LAs and Suppliers in November feels too late given the requirement for LAs to move to this way of working before we have a CMS that can comply with it. • Some LAs are not on the most up to date supplier version and the impact of just upgrading to this new area may be greater than for other LAs • For LAs that are migrating to another CMS or in the middle of a procurement this is going to present them with a significant challenge, and they might not achieve a go live of a new CMS until the year the reporting requirements are due to start. • If the changes (post implementation) - require supplier assistance for any reason this could cause backlogs for suppliers and delays to go lives. • Many LAs use external consultants for complex system change work as they cannot maintain specialist staff permanently due to budget pressures and there are a finite number of them this might put pressure on timescales. • Having heard from a pathfinder that they had to put all their other CMS work on hold to deliver this, there was concern about capacity especially for those that are ramping up changes to impro