Becta's School MIS & Value for Money follow up!

[Tonyoung]

[QUOTE=Simay;449991]

B. Capita and OFT Cases:
It wasn't until 1999 that Bromcom for the first time approached the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in order to achieve interoperability between Bromcom’s EARS system and Capita’s MIS in schools. The OFT acted swiftly and instructed Capita to provide the necessary information and collaboration required for this (please see attached document 2).

QUOTE]

Hi Simay - having just read the document 2 there are a few points I don't understand and hope you can help me with ?

1) In October of last year you supplied us with a list of "Technical Documentation Requirements", setting out the information which you claimed Bromcom needed from Capita to develop its PTA. When this list was put to Capita, however, it emerged that the information, which you claimed Capita had refused to supply, had never in fact been requested by you. Dr Pukas expressed our concern in relation to this in his letter to Mr Bailey dated 23 March 1999.

Is this correct ?

2) Bromcom's allegation and Capita's reply raised a number of technical issues, which, as you know, we referred to an independent IT expert, Paul Griew. Mr Griew concluded that not all of the information which Bromcom requested was necessary for every application'.

Why request information you don't need ?

3) We firmly take the view, however, that this is best achieved by agreement between the parties and that the detailed terms of any such agreement are best left to the parties themselves. The Office is not, therefore, persuaded on the information currently before it that this is a matter in which it would be appropriate for the Director General to intervene.

This doesn't look like a positive response to your claim ?

[Mcshammer_dj]

In order to help us understand the real situation here it would be nice if the user Tonyoung could let us know who he is representing. There are clearly question that are being raised directly to Bromcom looking at his post.

[enjay]

In order to help us understand the real situation here it would be nice if the user Tonyoung could let us know who he is representing. There are clearly question that are being raised directly to Bromcom looking at his post.

I think it fairly clear from how he interchanges "Capita" and "we/our"; it would be appropriate to admit that though, you're right.

[matt40k]

Can someone just close this thread?

[Sivadam]

I second that ...................... !!!!!!!!!!!!

I am amazed it has been allowed to go this far!

[localzuk]

Can someone just close this thread?

I second that ...................... !!!!!!!!!!!!

I am amazed it has been allowed to go this far!

Sorry, but why?

[Sivadam]

..... one would have thought that was obvious .....

[Simay]

Sorry, but why?

1. The subject matter of this thread (essentially people’s views on Becta’s follow up review) is a matter which affects both MIS Suppliers and MIS Users. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums.


2. Having said so, postings which are just ‘scathing with no substance’ should of course be edited out. My earlier post (27/01/10) was made as an explanation to issues raised in the thread.


3. Tonyoung – we would be happy to respond to your queries if you can disclose who you work for.

[Mcshammer_dj]

1. The subject matter of this thread (essentially people’s views on Becta’s follow up review) is a matter which affects both MIS Suppliers and MIS Users. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums.


2. Having said so, postings which are just ‘scathing with no substance’ should of course be edited out. My earlier post (27/01/10) was made as an explanation to issues raised in the thread.


3. Tonyoung – we would be happy to respond to your queries if you can disclose who you work for.

Are you sure that thsi is the case when you are discussing the OFT action and not the Becta Review?

[Sivadam]

... there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums ....

Oh No!

Here he is again with what again appears to be yet more 'unauthorised' advertising .....
(Just my own humble opinion I may add! - I have been know to be wrong on occasions. I think the last time was in 1954!)

I hope that others keep their integrity and that the independents will see this as what I believe it is.

[enjay]

Here he is again with what again appears to be yet more 'unauthorised' advertising .....

Kind of makes you wonder who Noosh is too, a first-time poster starting what has become a Capita-slating thread...

[Sivadam]

Exactly!

It has been happening a long time. It is one of the reasons I started contributing. One does suspect that some of the posts that appear are, to say the least, mischevious!

I probably defend Capita more than I normally would as a direct result of some of these posts, which I completely disagree with!

[matt40k]

Kind of makes you wonder who Noosh is too, a first-time poster starting what has become a Capita-slating thread...

Don't know... Bromcom taken a hit. I would of called it 2 - 2... or am I not keeping up?

[enjay]

Don't know... Bromcom taken a hit. I would of called it 2 - 2... or am I not keeping up?

No, that's probably a more accurate score. The point I was trying to make was whether there is a genuine educational/technological discussion to be had, or just Company A trying to convince us techies that their dad is better than Company X's dad, as it were. So, when a first-time poster kicks off one of these threads, you have to wonder who they are and what their motives are.

[Tonyoung]

I am spartacus