MIS Systems Thread, BECTA reports on School MIS and value for money 2010 in Technical; Originally Posted by localzuk
Then you'd be wrong.
Mighty bold statement there, one I think we'll have to agree to ...
Mighty bold statement there, one I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. My point of view is not flawed, just as yours is not, it is just different...
All I am saying is that in my experience, technology seems to rule over the people, and it is not just in the training, but in the confidence of use. You can't buy that. Obviously you have worked with some good staff, and I have too. But I have also worked with a lot of staff who on not just MISs are difficult to work with when it comes to change, even properly handled, and this is ALWAYS overlooked.
Back to the original point, if this needs to be reviewed every year: Ok so if you have decided to move from MIS A to MIS B. You probably have a long period of consultation, staggered change over and trial periods, training etc etc, taking maybe month or years (well suggested by Vik). Each year you need to conduct a thorough review of if this is giving the best ROI. MIS A now, after 1 year, had a whole load of new features, operability, pricing structure. What happens?
i have to agree with localz on this - the underlying system is key, and if the staff / users don't see the importance of that, then it's our job to inform. who best to educate the management on the VfM of the MIS than the techs involved with it. Yes usability and end function are important too, but the problems that 'we' face everyday, interfacing to other systems being an example end up being not good value for money as we need to spend extra time / money on third party systems or develop our own workarounds.
As for what do you do if things change then you have to take a hit, because lets face it, it's unlikely. if you make a well informed decision and put in a 3 year plan to change, then it wont be value for money to go back on that decision after a year, you have to follow through on the benefits derived initially. Another school that didn't make the change when 'you' did, could make a different choice based on the market after that one year.
If we get to a state that there is enough competition and the different providers are making changes that are appealing to use then that's a good thing. It should after some time get to the point one would hope (albeit in vain) that it's easier to transition from one MIS to another because there are simple ports set up. Afterall the underlying data is the same isn't...?
We could not successfully install - until yesterday (the day that the evaluation form should have been returned)!
Mind you, as a result, Capita now have two issues that they have to resolve before Spring. So I have been of some use even tho' I could only do a minimal amount of testing today.
Capita offer hosted solutions for SLG, and many LAs now host SIMS don't they. This is all in the cloud. A change is still a nightmare, which i think is part of what the document is getting at. Due to the resistance to change, people are locking themselves in to one provider and not necessarily getting value for money.
As for the cloud, i think there is plenty of options in terms of backup / failover, so the only downfall is when your connection goes. For that i would want a solution with some kind of local cache of certain information, e.g. firedrill lists.