School MIS and OFT MARKET STUDY: "Supply of ICT to the public sector"

[Bromcom-PR]

After Becta Report 2010, this is new Market Study published today by OFT that also covers school MIS in substantial way.

 

Very notable references to suppliers and local authorities procurement practices:

 

 

Key recommendation:

"This is an important sector of the economy and the CMA should give careful consideration to prioritising an investigation into any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour"

(CMA = Competition and Markets Authority)

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/market-studies/OFT1533.pdf

 

Supply of information and communications technology to the public sector - The Office of Fair Trading

 

 

Previous OFT investigation into school MIS market:

See page 12: http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_case_closures/2003.pdf;jsessionid=B3B9AF043F37824FEC043C8ED5A72EB1

 

 

[matt40k]

I read that (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/market-studies/OFT1533.pdf) as a confirmation of @GREED #MISChallenge

 

Worth highlighting the following before we jump to any conclusions.

 

The OFT asked buyers and suppliers for their view of the allegations

made in The Public Administration Select Committee report

‘Government and IT – ‘a recipe for rip-offs’: time for a new

approach[1]’, in particular 'the serious allegations of anti-competitive

behaviour and collusion.' Buyers did not provide any evidence in

response to this question. Suppliers, both large and small, strongly

refuted the allegation, asserting that the sector is fiercely competitive.

However, given that unlawful collusion between suppliers is almost

invariably carried out in secret (to avoid the significant penalties that

may be imposed on businesses and individuals that participate in such

collusion), we cannot reach any conclusions about the existence

or otherwise of unlawful collusion in this sector from these responses.

[GREED]

I have not read it full, I will do tonight... bedtime reading!

 

But is this not an industry - wide investigation, not just education MIS suppliers.

 

I would like to think this was prompted by my MIS Challenge... maybe I will #BigHead

[matt40k]

Oh indeed, it's basically slamming my whole industry, but I suspect education, particularly MIS systems, being so critical is a key part of it.

 

I'm hoping they pick up on your MIS Challenge as it's a foot in the right direction, ok it's baby steps but Rome wasn't built in a day!

[GREED]

Well you know it only needs some interested parties to point them in the direction of the survey and I am sure they will make use of it.

[matt40k]

Bah, I just wrote a essay reply and it's disappeared

 

Crux was, tender process is flawed. It's more of a legal exercise then a common sense exercise. Ideally the feedback LAs\Academy Trust get from Schools regularly should be formalized and that should be the new more agile "tender" process. So when Census workshops happen, for example, the LA should tack on, hey, who's going to BETT (or whatever) and ask what they're looking for and help them find other suppliers to investigate then feedback to the LA who should work with the supplier to do a intro to the rest of the schools in the LA, then do a bit of validation\due diligence. Hopefully then when things like Capita MultiView appear on the market, people are looking at new MIS systems as well as bolt-ons rather then thinking ok maybe a new MIS system would be the best solution but not after the cost of tendering. Of course this will only work if the suppliers are ok with some feedback like your friendly user interface isn't user friendly, or it just simply costs too much, or we have high unemployment and we want to boost jobs locally where possible - ie outsourcing support to a company in London isn't an option.

 

At least your work Graham will give a list of suppliers, so that's step one done and you don't have to worry about Google missing anyone off or the DfE for that matter!! If suppliers are honest and only list what areas they are really good at operating in then step two of filtering the list down can be done within an hour (once you've got the requirements of course!)

 

 

PS: Who are those suppliers who aren't happy?

[Bromcom-PR]

I have not read it full, I will do tonight... bedtime reading!

 

But is this not an industry - wide investigation, not just education MIS suppliers.

 

Let's hope we can enjoy an 'adult like' discussion on very important aspect of school MIS market.

 

Indeed the Market Study is across public sectors. However school MIS is recognized as one of extreme cases and the study makes plenty references to school MIS, Local Authority procurement (LA) practices and questions anti-competitive behavior of incumbent dominant supplier.

 

After DfE and Becta Report 2010, this is central goverment taking keen interest in school MIS market and buyers and suppliers behavior and address issue of non-compliance to EU/UK procurement laws by LAs and anti-competitive practices by dominant supplier.

 

OFT invited Bromcom for a lengthy meeting earlier on during their investigations with the full team working on the Market Study and appears to have taken onboard input provided. We understand at least one other supplier also has been contacted and asked for input over a telephone conference.

 

For good of the school MIS market/suppliers and of course for the children education, the market needs to work. OFT report clearly saying that it is working and hence key recommendation speak for itself: "This is an important sector of the economy and the CMA should give careful consideration to prioritising an investigation into any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour"

[vikpaw]

Let's hope we can enjoy an 'adult like' discussion on very important aspect of school MIS market.

I hope you're not insinuating we are anything but 'adult like'.

 

The bits I read are very non-specific. They want to say something is wrong without actually saying something is wrong, or naming any names.

I suspect they will utilise the age old tactic of introducing lots of red tape and new processes to cloud ( ) the issues and hope the problem goes away without them having to get heavy handed.

[Bromcom-PR]

I hope you're not insinuating we are anything but 'adult like'.

 

The bits I read are very non-specific. They want to say something is wrong without actually saying something is wrong, or naming any names.

I suspect they will utilise the age old tactic of introducing lots of red tape and new processes to cloud ( ) the issues and hope the problem goes away without them having to get heavy handed.

 

Adult like:

We do not mean badly - but this is very serious market-wide issue hence being taken up by OFT and likely to be followed by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Therefore should be discussed without taking defensive position by reading the subject matter as an attack on to a specific company and product. In our recent thread on cloud topic, the subject matter was kept taken from technology discussions into product comparisons and companies. We even invited a globally renowned cloud specialist to participate on the forum. Yet in the end the thread ended up with T-Shirts being promoted!

 

They want to say something is wrong without actually saying something is wrong, or naming any names:

Surely what is wrong is clearly stated - "LAs not tendering for school MIS" and "anti-competitive behaviour". However such Market Study will not name parties. It will be down to CMA to do so in the next stage.

 

Yes we agree that red tape should not be introduced around cloud. That will be a bad outcome!

[vikpaw]

If you repeatedly mention companies, one in particular, then no matter how much you intend to keep the topic focussed on technology, it will always end up being a comparison, or a discussion about why it shouldn't be a comparison.

 

Stay unbiased and hopefully the discussion will as well.

 

With regards to what is wrong, what i meant was that they still seem to be very guarded about what they say.

[matt40k]

With regards to the t-shirt comment, the idea was give people, like Graham, who have engaged with market and have taken feedback on board in hopes to improve the marketplace a way to visually show their effort. I'm sure anyone who invests the time and money in more official routes would be displaying the logo on their emails and website.

 

I hope OFT, CMA and any other authority will acknowledge LAs\Schools ARE fully engaged with the market and that LAs not tendering for school MIS isn't because they are anti-competitive, but because no business case has present itself to warrant the cost of entering into the tendering process. I personally suspect if this was less of a legal issue, we'd see more transparently appearing and we'd see what engagement is actually happening then we could see how anti-competitive the School MIS market actually is.

[GREED]

I agree, lets let the discussion progress, but lets also not try to cloud () the issues or make a bigger issue of items than is actually there for those who may read this yet not be fully aware of the background and market status now.

 

In particular, this is NOT just about MIS software, there are 6 distinctly different software application types under review, so it would be wrong to assume that this MIS is solely under the spotlight.

 

It is very important for our market, I agree. Assuming there is findings that there has been "non-compliance with EU Law", which is wholly different from "anti-competitive behaviour" which is wholly different from what I would call somewhat immoral behaviour, and many people could probably agree with more on the right of that scale than the left. I'm sure some would have the opinion more towards the right. Perhaps a discusson is worthy around that? Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on how much individuals would like to share.

 

One might argue that having such a discussion publicly now would not give the investigation a completely unbiased review of the sector and it's suppliers, and ultimately we cannot do anything to implement that other than to pre-tarnish anyone on both sides of the argument prior to a ruling by OFT. I certainly wouldn't want that on anyone, either with accusations that become unfounded according to OFT, but mud sticks, and at the same time being perceived as accusing left right and centre and losing future kudos!

 

All I am saying is lets discuss but not accuse!

[GREED]

With regards to the t-shirt comment, the idea was give people, like Graham, who have engaged with market and have taken feedback on board in hopes to improve the marketplace a way to visually show their effort. I'm sure anyone who invests the time and money in more official routes would be displaying the logo on their emails and website.

 

My 'I survived Matt40K Tee is ordered....

 

Sorry @Bromcom-PR I couldn't resist! I will go back to being sensible!

[vikpaw]

Again, it could be argued this warrants being discussed outside of just the MIS forum, as it affects many different areas.

 

With regards anti-competitive behaviour i would like to re-highlight part of @matt40k 's quote

in particular 'the serious allegations of anti-competitive

behaviour and collusion.' Buyers did not provide any evidence in

response to this question. Suppliers, both large and small, strongly

refuted the allegation, asserting that the sector is fiercely competitive.

 

In terms of MISes. Is it really that hard to get a quote from a rival, and, is tendering really that expensive? I'm sure there are plenty of stories to say yes it is, but i know loads of MIS companies and you could just send them an email and get a quote if you really wanted, it's easy enough to get a demo too.

 

So what really is stopping people from jumping ship? - The pain and hassle that it involves. Measures to enforce a degree of uniformity between suppliers in terms of moving data will for sure create a fairer playing field.

[GREED]

 

So what really is stopping people from jumping ship? - The pain and hassle that it involves. Measures to enforce a degree of uniformity between suppliers in terms of moving data will for sure create a fairer playing field.

Change Management for staff is by far the biggest issue and the biggest cost.

[matt40k]

I take it you haven't had the joy of tendering yet then @vikpaw. Asking for quotes isn't proper tendering. Proper tendering is expensive. You have a run a project over a number of months, engage with a wide range of your users and the marketplace. You have any idea how much it actually costs to fill a room of office staff, let alone headteachers! And this is just to demo'ing the solution, you've then got other checks that occur like vetting the company to ensure they aren't funded by crime or likely to go under, security assessment to ensure your data isn't going to end up on pastebin like Tesco customer data has. Then you've got the whole validation of the sales pitches - are their costings correct, can they actual migrate within 2 days, is the user interface so user friendly people can just pick it up or are you going to need loads of training. And, at the end of all this all you've got is a list of recommendation - the end users like these solutions and they aren't full of holes. You'll still find people aren't happy with your recommendations and you haven't even agreed to implement\buy anything!! So I can see how both parties aren't happy with the tender process!

[GREED]

We have an unfortunate paradox here.

 

We are complaining that the time and associated cost with a full procurement. If we made the process shorter, you potentially fall foul of not giving people fair opportunity to bid (not that they are now even when they get a fair crack at the whip!), plus the buying party would also risk not carrying out full due diligence... another thread on here I know!

[matt40k]

I don't think so, I'm saying it happens already, we just need to formalize the process and make it more transparent to allow the overall process to be more agile. So rather then it being a one-time activity, it's on going. So when engagement happens, this follows a formal process so that it can be audited as actually happening so OFT and suppliers are happy anti-competitive practices are in place. I'm not saying I would replace the tender process, I think we still need it there for when major events occur - such as electronic registration, VLE, parental engagement, Post-16 agenda, "big data". I just thing a more relax process would allow suppliers to improve more quickly without introducing costly red tape exercises - assuming suppliers are willing to accept negative feedback that is! Otherwise we'll just see more complains and more demands for expensive tendering.

[GREED]

But how do you ensure the process is fair and all suppliers have opportunity to engage? We all know schools staff they stick with what they know and like, often the only way they see other products is when the LA tells them to or invites them to an event. Unless you legislate, someone will ALWAYS feel hard done by, and then write off to OFT or worse... which then gets backs up and then forces full procurement, which ultimately is more expensive.

 

I'm not arguing that there could be informal things put in to minimise the procurement in some ways (so soft market testing is a more continuous process for example, prices are more public and stuck to, like on G-cloud).

 

In fact it is pricing that is the crucks of the issues in my experience. Doing deals to undercut the opposition. Which is obviously partly what OFT are looking at. Then, the bigger players have easy facility to basically give the software away. LA is happy, perceivably the public are happy. But competition is left no where. I suffered from this during my Aspen days. Perhaps a more published set of prices that have to be used for procurement until a supplier is chosen, only then can negotiation occur. I believe that was the idea of IMLS too... (mind you, IMLS had many ideas!!)

[matt40k]

I think if they went down the process I suggested, you'll be surprised how much engagement happens. If we break away the legal barrier, more people would engage - especially if it gets them out of doing a full tender process! I personally have no issue inviting another supplier to present at the end of a meeting which has been heavy dominated by another supplier to talk about how they believe they can improve our systems. At least gets the dominate supplier thinking about how they can improve alot more!

 

Pricing. Yer, it's a tough one, no one wants to be the one who goes, hey, you've been underpaying, now we're taking a larger slice of your budget. It's just, well, look at Bromcom public statement - http://www.bromcom.com/press/pdf/071209_Press.pdf - they claim Capita are overcharging schools by £75 million. I'm not say your wrong, or that two counter act each other, I'm sure you'll agree with the core message that public money is being wasted by lack of transparency. But the fact is despite being able to FOI request prices, I've only found two MIS providers listed on the G-Cloud. If suppliers believe pricing was truly an issue I would expect to see more suppliers on the G-Cloud and only operating via the G-Cloud.

 

 

The G-Cloud by the way releases monthly reports of what everyone has purchased via the G-Cloud - Sales Information - G-CloudG-Cloud.

[Bromcom-PR]

But how do you ensure the process is fair and all suppliers have opportunity to engage? We all know schools staff they stick with what they know and like, often the only way they see other products is when the LA tells them to or invites them to an event. Unless you legislate, someone will ALWAYS feel hard done by, and then write off to OFT or worse... which then gets backs up and then forces full procurement, which ultimately is more expensive.

 

I'm not arguing that there could be informal things put in to minimise the procurement in some ways (so soft market testing is a more continuous process for example, prices are more public and stuck to, like on G-cloud).

 

I believe that was the idea of IMLS too... (mind you, IMLS had many ideas!!)

 

But how do you ensure the process is fair and all suppliers have opportunity to engage?

A very good question @GREED. Probably it is easier to explain in a list of do's and don'ts as below:

 

Do's:

• LAs should have regular suppliers days for schools and for LA support teams to see different products, suppliers, technologies and approaches than incumbent
  
• LAs should test the market regularly say every 5 years - this is a legal requirement for compliance (as per Becta Report 2010 and OFT Market Study 2014)
  
• LAs should be output driven with their technical requirements and not prescriptive - part of good procurement practice
  
• LAs should use exiting procurement framework designed by DfE and GPS (now CCS) - namely IMLS RM1500. This will be a 'mini tender' rather than full OJEU tender process.
  

 

Don'ts

• LAs should not ignore that cloud era is here now and can save substantial cost and bring benefits of cloud deployment from agility to ease of management. This itself is a business case for going to tender.
  
• LAs should not use obscure procurement framework eg RM713 where only one MIS supplier exists - (more details are available on real life cases)
  
• LAs should not apply VEAT notice to sign up for software maintenance contracts - (more details are available on real life cases)
  
• LAs should not take on fake cloud using client-server software as SoSaaS ie "Same old Software as a Service" - (more details are available on real life cases)
  

 

I hope the above helps to answer @GREED's question.

[GREED]

Oh yes in total agreement that the whole process is sucking money that should be going to the people and kids on the ground, totally agree. It is a process that I think needs to happen in reality, buy shouldn't need to happen if that makes sense

[GREED]

My thoughts on your points:

 

Do's:

LAs should have regular suppliers days for schools and for LA support teams to see different products, suppliers, technologies and approaches than incumbent

Agreed. Incumbent should not be excluded though, for fairness. They might have new products or abilities that schools may yet not know about. Think if you were incumbent, you would want that opportunity

 

LAs should test the market regularly say every 5 years - this is a legal requirement for compliance (as per Becta Report 2010 and OFT Market Study 2014)

Agree of the first point. Is the BECTA report a LEGAL requirement? or Informed Advice? Honest question but be careful with the L word!

 

LAs should be output driven with their technical requirements and not prescriptive - part of good procurement practice

Totally agree. 100%!

 

LAs should use exiting procurement framework designed by DfE and GPS (now CCS) - namely IMLS RM1500. This will be a 'mini tender' rather than full OJEU tender process.

Maybe, but IMLS really was a waste of time in my opinion, it tested the company more than the product. I wonder what proportion of LAs have used IMLS as opposed to any other procurement operation?

 

 

Don'ts

LAs should not ignore that cloud era is here now and can save substantial cost and bring benefits of cloud deployment from agility to ease of management. This itself is a business case for going to tender.

Fundamentally true, they should not ignore it, but it does come down to the product not just because it is cloud. Functionality and usability should not be sacrificed for the sake of it being cloud.

 

LAs should not use obscure procurement framework eg RM713 where only one MIS supplier exists - (more details are available on real life cases)

But you do want them to use IMLS? Not all current suppliers big and small are on there, so equally that is not fair. I agree with you, but one cannot pick and choose what frameworks they should and should not use. This is more a moral issue, which I have said many times before. By using such a framework they are actively and knowingly choosing not to explore the market, and should acknowledge this to the public!

 

LAs should not apply VEAT notice to sign up for software maintenance contracts - (more details are available on real life cases)

In essence the same comment as above, but there may be valid reasons for using VEAT. After all, this is a EU directive, I think they know what they are talking about. But there again should be justification from the LA as to why they have done this.

 

LAs should not take on fake cloud using client-server software as SoSaaS ie "Same old Software as a Service" - (more details are available on real life cases)

Sorry, but this is very subjective, and it returns to my comment above. True cloud is a positive but it does not override completely if the 'fake cloud' product is not as functional or usable. Side by side and matching up on all levels, then yes true cloud should win. This is why I would love to do a baseline technical and functional test on every MIS in the market so there is alignment on functions, then if they do align functionally the cloud vs non-cloud argument has bigger teeth in an argument. Don't get me wrong I conceptually agree, but there is a lot more to it than just saying to LAs "You must only choose a cloud solution", because all the cloud solution might be rubbish!

 

 

This has really made me think that LAs should be made to be more accountable as to justifying their decisions on procurement, or certainly on their procurement route choices. If there is valid reason, then great we can all (try to) be happy, and if not then it would make them think more carefully...

Edited March 26, 2014 by GREED

[GREED]

Would anyone care to comment on how/where Academies and Trusts fit into the conversation.

 

For instance I have found this (Well, found for me, thanks @penfold_99)

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academies-procurement-resource-buying-for-your-academy

[Bromcom-PR]

Would anyone care to comment on how/where Academies and Trusts fit into the conversation.

 

For instance I have found this (Well, found for me, thanks @penfold_99)

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academies-procurement-resource-buying-for-your-academy

 

 

Detailed on Page 5 - more of the same - use IMLS 1500 and/or suppliers on it:

 

5.1 ICT provision

The Department for Education has a number of its own ICT contracts and frameworks in place that have been constructed and tested to the specific needs of Academies and contain:

• suppliers with knowledge and experience of delivering educational solutions

• suppliers who have been evaluated via an EU compliant competition process

• quality assured suppliers that have been subjected to technical / quality evaluation and testing process

• suppliers who have signed up to a comprehensive set of pre-determined contractual terms and conditions (limiting risk exposure to customers)

• suppliers that are subject to contract and performance management and reporting

• access to specialist advice as well as tender templates and model contracts.

ICT Services

– is a department framework, that is free to use, which enables the purchase of most categories of ICT. This is being used extensively within the Academies community with over £100m already committed through it and has become the default procurement mechanism for the Free Schools ICT capital programme.

A specific ‘Lite’ version of this Framework’s terms and conditions is available for single school or Academy use.

Information Management and Learning Services (IMLS)

– is a Government Procurement Service (GPS) framework placed on behalf of the Department and specifically covers educational management information systems and learning platforms.