Data Centre Exit Programme

Reference code: 
PCD 198
Date signed: 
18 May 2017
Authorisation name: 
Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor, Policing and Crime

Executive summary

This paper seeks approval for capital funding of £9.3m to enable the completion of the Data Centre Exit Programme formally known as the Hosting Migration Programme. This will allow the MPS to undertake the activities necessary to complete the exit of the two CapGemini Data Centres known as Kestrel and Osprey including server migration to the virtual environment, lift and shift of physical servers, network changes to Local-Area Network / Wide-Area Network equipment and programme assurance.


The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is asked to approve £9.3m of capital funding to enable the remaining work to be completed to allow exit of legacy data centres Kestrel and Osprey.

Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)

1.    Introduction and background

1.1.    The Data Centre Exit Programme is part of the overall migration to the SIAM and Towers model, to enable the MPS to have a modern and up to date Hosting Platform. This involves converting old out-of-support physical servers to Virtual Servers and to host new Virtual Servers for the MPS.

1.2.    The Data Centre Exit Programme will assist the MPS to move towards a cloud based hosting solution by consolidating the server infrastructure onto a modern environment. This proposal also supports the Police and Crime Plan by providing the MPS with the opportunity to respond to crime more effectively by having digital equipment that enables access to better information without having to input into multiple and aging systems.

2.    Issues for consideration

2.1.    See the Part 2 for details.

3.    Financial Comments

3.1.    The MPS requires capital funding of £9.3m to enable the completion of the Data Centre Exit Programme. This funding is provided for in the capital plan.

3.2.    Further details are discussed in the Part 2. 

4.    Legal Comments

4.1.    There are no legal implications arising from this report.

5.    Equality Comments

5.1.    There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report

6.    Background/supporting papers

6.1.    Report.

Share this page