Tribal Group

[beeswax]

Has anyone had any dealings with the Tribal Group? It appears that they have been selected as another partner to manage our IT services.

[Geoff]

They've gone through a few name changes!

 

http://www.tribaldata.co.uk/

http://www.tribaltechnology.co.uk/

 

Every April for the past three years, very strange.

[Dos_Box]

Why is it that whenever BSF IT partners are mentioned I've hardly (never) heard of them or their 'World Class' services and 'Market Leading' positions?

[Geoff]

I pulled their finances off the Stock Exchange. Nothing paticularly exciting. They seem to of been steadly making less and less money over the past few years though (Although don't get me wrong, they aren't exactly losing money either). Their net turnover seems to be dipping too.

[psydii]

It's also worth checking their records at company's house. Name changes around when they should be filing accounts, in my (limited) experience, can indicate a financial sleight of hand to avoid someting nasty.

[tech_guy]

Yeah, have a look on their website and see if there are any pictures of the head-honcho or management team - you might be able to see their dorsal fins........

[beeswax]

Since posting this afternoon, we've (techies) had a meeting with one of their consultants. Tribal are engaged by the council to act as "facilitators" (my definition) to find out our (techies) views on how we want to see BSF affecting the schools in our LEA. I have no problem with this, as the council no longer have the manpower, or the skills to make this sort of call. I just wish I had a better handle on the ground rules. He seemed to be saying that we might not want a fully managed service, server farms etc, but go for a system where we only get our equipment from the various "accredited" suppliers. He made it clear that even if we were all still based (important terminology) in the school, that our wage slips would bear the name of the company we were working for, and not the school.

He left us with a questionnaire which asked us to provide a run down of computers, data points, servers, etc. in order to find out the state of IT provision in our LEA schools.

It may not be a fully managed service, but we will be fully managed, with all the insecurities, real, or imagined, that this will bring.

I'm trying to remain neutral in all this, listening to the arguments, but there's so much conflicting talk from various sides that I worry about the outcome of this consultation.

[psydii]

There will be conflicting talk at least up to Financial Close, although things here do seem to be crystalising.

 

We heard all that you have been told in the initial stages, only for the council to decide for it to be a fully managed service (aka Outsourced, with a single supplier/provider guarenteed exclusivity contract).

 

With strong leadership and a viable alternative you can push for better.

[Grommit]

Since posting this afternoon, we've (techies) had a meeting with one of their consultants. Tribal are engaged by the council to act as "facilitators" (my definition) to find out our (techies) views on how we want to see BSF affecting the schools in our LEA. I have no problem with this, as the council no longer have the manpower, or the skills to make this sort of call. I just wish I had a better handle on the ground rules. He seemed to be saying that we might not want a fully managed service, server farms etc, but go for a system where we only get our equipment from the various "accredited" suppliers. He made it clear that even if we were all still based (important terminology) in the school, that our wage slips would bear the name of the company we were working for, and not the school.

He left us with a questionnaire which asked us to provide a run down of computers, data points, servers, etc. in order to find out the state of IT provision in our LEA schools.

It may not be a fully managed service, but we will be fully managed, with all the insecurities, real, or imagined, that this will bring.

I'm trying to remain neutral in all this, listening to the arguments, but there's so much conflicting talk from various sides that I worry about the outcome of this consultation.

 

Well as the Consultant said ... you'll or who ever is left working on site will be TUPED to a new company that will control the ICT at the School.. (Managed Services)

[beeswax]

Grommit, what a little ray of sunshine your are on a drab autumn morning

 

Have you been tuped already, or are you just further down the line than I am?

[localzuk]

Since posting this afternoon, we've (techies) had a meeting with one of their consultants. Tribal are engaged by the council to act as "facilitators" (my definition) to find out our (techies) views on how we want to see BSF affecting the schools in our LEA. I have no problem with this, as the council no longer have the manpower, or the skills to make this sort of call. I just wish I had a better handle on the ground rules. He seemed to be saying that we might not want a fully managed service, server farms etc, but go for a system where we only get our equipment from the various "accredited" suppliers. He made it clear that even if we were all still based (important terminology) in the school, that our wage slips would bear the name of the company we were working for, and not the school.

He left us with a questionnaire which asked us to provide a run down of computers, data points, servers, etc. in order to find out the state of IT provision in our LEA schools.

It may not be a fully managed service, but we will be fully managed, with all the insecurities, real, or imagined, that this will bring.

I'm trying to remain neutral in all this, listening to the arguments, but there's so much conflicting talk from various sides that I worry about the outcome of this consultation.

 

It sounds very much like double-speak to me. On one hand they say it won't be fully managed but the school would have to buy from a short list of suppliers (where is FMSIS in this?) but on the other they are saying you would become employees of the company - ie. managed.

 

What they need to answer really is whether changes to the systems would have to be green stamped by them or not. So, rather than you being asked by staff and then going and doing it, would it have to go up to your new managers first?

[Grommit]

Grommit, what a little ray of sunshine your are on a drab autumn morning

 

Have you been tuped already, or are you just further down the line than I am?

 

Sorry mate.. I have been through what you are going through... so good luck

 

He seemed to be saying that we might not want a fully managed service, server farms etc, but go for a system where we only get our equipment from the various "accredited" suppliers. He made it clear that even if we were all still based (important terminology) in the school, that our wage slips would bear the name of the company we were working for, and not the school.

He left us with a questionnaire which asked us to provide a run down of computers, data points, servers, etc. in order to find out the state of IT provision in our LEA schools.

It may not be a fully managed service, but we will be fully managed, with all the insecurities, real, or imagined, that this will bring.

.

 

It sounds very much like double-speak to me. On one hand they say it won't be fully managed but the school would have to buy from a short list of suppliers (where is FMSIS in this?) but on the other they are saying you would become employees of the company - ie. managed.

 

What they need to answer really is whether changes to the systems would have to be green stamped by them or not. So, rather than you being asked by staff and then going and doing it, would it have to go up to your new managers first?

 

I think the consultant was using double speak so as not to totally freak out the ICT Staff.. or very vauge with the truth...

[beeswax]

I'm not having a go at you Grommit, and I do read almost all (sometimes I haven't the time to look in on Edugeek)you have to say on this subject.

[Grommit]

I'm not having a go at you Grommit, and I do read almost all (sometimes I haven't the time to look in on Edugeek)you have to say on this subject.

 

Well basically I think it is disgusting the way the BSF is destroying the IT Support community in the Schools..

 

We are a integral part of the running of the school and not just as network support but for ideas and advice we give the staff..

 

So I say we should rise up and burn the BSF at the stake

[Richie1972]

It's done to turn schools into businesses like they did with the NHS (which is, strangely enough, starting to head away from the centrally managed IT again, I believe).

We had the "consultant" from Tribal (a "Cleve St Hill") who tried to sell us the bull**** (including them saying they weren't wanting to go down the fully centrally managed route - obviously he just wanted me on side).

 

BSF, at some point, will crash and burn, but not in time to save us in Blackburn - we are being railroaded into the new company possibly as soon as september next year.

So, looks like I'm on the market for a new job (I would struggle, morally, to work under such conditions).

 

I have tried, on numerous occasions to see the pros of BSF (yes there are some - new buildings and equipment), but the losses in terms of staff, communities and resources (experience, personal contacts, etc) is going to affect schools very badly in the long run.

[Grommit]

Has anyone had any dealings with the Tribal Group? It appears that they have been selected as another partner to manage our IT services.

 

Actually I think thay are there to fleece you of money with consultancy fees...