Government Cloud MIS list

[GrumbleDook]

The problem here is that you are both talking about a solution specific purchase rather than a requirement driven purchase.

 

The drive to upgrade to the latest version of products because it add 43 1/2 new features ... but removes 23 others ... is not a reason to say the new product is better, especially when it meets less of the requirements requested.

 

If using LotusNotes from 1999 actually meets the customer's requirements (presuming that patches for security, etc were all available to bring it up to spec on that side) what would be the problem?

 

Please note that this is not just specific to this thread but it would be interesting to see the response of folk on this in general.

[scholarpack]

If using LotusNotes from 1999 actually meets the customer's requirements (presuming that patches for security, etc were all available to bring it up to spec on that side) what would be the problem?

 

No problem at all. But some might argue that it undermines the key message and advantage the government are trying to push with G Cloud.

[matt40k]

I can see both sides of the argument. One one side you've got @GrumbleDook saying don't be pushed by new technology, if it doesn't help. Question why your doing it. IE don't replace all your new Windows PC with new Apple Mac just because they are "better". On the other hand you've got @scholarpack and @Bromcom-PR saying, don't do the same thing, just because that's the way you've always done it, if there is a better way of doing it, do it that way. It's like user account creation, you might have manually created user accounts in the past, but why wouldn't you use powershell to script it nowadays.

[GREED]

just because that's the way you've always done it, if there is a better way of doing it, do it that way.

 

Just to throw my usual antagonistic views in here: 'Better' is so often a subjective term. Better for one school or customer might not be on the same scale as another, or not noticed by another, or detrimental to another. Progress on consumer products replacing existing ones should be driven by customer demand (I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread or outside is not customer responsive). Pioneering is something very different and risk/reward is always tipping. But making a change for change sake or 'because that is what x department or government wants to see' or 'this is what the NHS does' are not valid reasons.

 

The exception comes when 'the government TELLS you this is what is going to happen'... DX anyone? :-D

[Bromcom-PR]

The problem here is that you are both talking about a solution specific purchase rather than a requirement driven purchase.

 

The drive to upgrade to the latest version of products because it add 43 1/2 new features ... but removes 23 others ... is not a reason to say the new product is better, especially when it meets less of the requirements requested.

 

If using LotusNotes from 1999 actually meets the customer's requirements (presuming that patches for security, etc were all available to bring it up to spec on that side) what would be the problem?

 

Please note that this is not just specific to this thread but it would be interesting to see the response of folk on this in general.

 

 

I couldn't agree more with @GrumbleDook. However I don know why anyone should assume that "... latest version of products ... add 43 1/2 new features ... but removes 23 others".

 

Just be crystal clear: All arguments put forward by Bromcom hereto is very much on a key assumption that product features and the functionality needed by the user is on 'like with like'. Bromcom and others suppliers gripe is that local authorities/schools do not even come out to the market (via tenders/soft market research) - hence how will they know if new generation products (cloud) can deliver the features and functionality on 'like with like' basis or even more.

 

The strange thing is that users of new generation MIS in fact are delighted with new features that for 10s of years have been denied. One of the best example is from an exam manager expressing her delight stating that besides meeting her previous MIS features there are new ones and many that stands out - as an example she says:

 

"[With browser MIS software] you can open up several windows and work in different modules ... so while I am running a long report say in Exam module, I can be doing something else in MIS - say in curriculum module and also look at exam module easily for cross referencing. When we were printing in [our previous generation/legacy thick client MIS] I couldn't do anything else.".

Exam Officer, Carterton School, in Oxfordshire.

 

So all the 'true cloud' advantages expressed in this thread, should be assumed as 'extra' and not as a trade off against features or functionality.

[Bromcom_John]

@GrumbleDook, I think you are correct in the "if it ain't broke why fix it" arena, but this isn't about fixing things.

I would not agree with a statement of "If it ain't broke why bother trying to improve it."

Thankfully for us the IT sector rarely agree's with that statement either.

Innovation and change are constantly driving us to improve our products but the products needs to continue to work.

 

@GREED, you are right that change should be driven by Customer Demand. However in a lot of our scope our "customer" is in fact the DfE. So when they mandate a change, in order to stay competitive in the market, the change must be implemented. Luckily we have a "degree" of communication and say in those changes so can champion our "other" customers (you know the ones, smaller than the DfE scattered around the country, I believe they are called schools ) and ensure that what is added suits there wants as much as possible.

 

As for examples of products being changed "specifically" to embrace the cloud structure, well you don't need to go back to 1999 for that.

Microsoft has one of the "killer" consumer products for the production desktop in the form of the Office suite. Sure there are competitors, open source players and smaller market share holders but Office is arguably to biggest "go to" product in its type.

With untold dollars investment over decades in their existing product, Microsoft totally revised their delivery model and embraced a distributed delivery system with Office 365. They rebuilt from the ground up with all-web based application running in the cloud.

I believe they realised that (along with Google, Adobe and many others in the big leagues) that they needed to change in order to embrace the new ecosystem that comes with Cloud.

To be able to reach more consumers, with a better suite of tools they chose true cloud over any other implementation.

And they've gone even further with Office 2013, yes they still deliver locally based installation (or even LAN based managed systems) but the delivery of Office 2013 is embracing cloud concepts.

 

The first thing you’ll see when you open Microsoft Office is a clean, new look. But the features you know and use are still there—along with some new ones that are huge time savers.

The new Office also works with smartphones, tablets, and in the cloud, even on PCs that don’t have Office installed. So now you can always get to your important files, no matter where you are or what you’re using.

Microsoft marketing

 

and all of that without a single VPN in sight!

 

Sorry if it comes over a tad "rambly".. but I'll close with a picture to save another 1000 words.

 

http://cdn.leanblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/dangerous.jpeg

[matt40k]

I total agree with your image John...

 

@GREED, you are right that change should be driven by Customer Demand. However in a lot of our scope our "customer" is in fact the DfE.

 

...but to quote the GDS, the GOV.UK golden boys and girls who everyone is trying to be more like...

 

http://blog.matt40k.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/design.png

[Bromcom-PR]

Just to throw my usual antagonistic views in here: 'Better' is so often a subjective term. Better for one school or customer might not be on the same scale as another, or not noticed by another, or detrimental to another. Progress on consumer products replacing existing ones should be driven by customer demand (I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread or outside is not customer responsive). Pioneering is something very different and risk/reward is always tipping. But making a change for change sake or 'because that is what x department or government wants to see' or 'this is what the NHS does' are not valid reasons.

 

On the question of 'better' is so often a subjective term, may be one can browse product entries on the #MISChallenge to check out at least a good number of products.

[GrumbleDook]

@GrumbleDook, I think you are correct in the "if it ain't broke why fix it" arena, but this isn't about fixing things.

I would not agree with a statement of "If it ain't broke why bother trying to improve it."

Thankfully for us the IT sector rarely agree's with that statement either.

Innovation and change are constantly driving us to improve our products but the products needs to continue to work.

 

And this is part of the problem that exists now.

 

People mistake change for something new as an improvement, purely because it is change. This is not just an issue with technology, but with many sectors ... Hey, we can even look at the DfE for some scary examples of this within policies!

 

If a customer requirement is met by an existing product but that can be made more efficient and still meet the requirement then this is a good change.

If a customer requirement is met by an existing product but a change to the requirement is met by a new or improved product, resulting in an improvement of what the company does, then this is a good change.

If a customer requirement is met by an existing product but a change to the requirement is forced upon by a new or improved product, then this may not always by an improvement to the company.

 

You get the same in schools and businesses ... change for change's sake.

Or the cynic in me would say ... change for the shareholders' sake?

 

Dump desktops for laptops

Dump laptops for netbooks

Dump everything for tablets

 

Now folk have swapped tech ... erm ... what are the going to do with it?

[CESIL]

I work in a junior school in Hampshire and most of us have been using SIMS.net hosted by our LEA using a citrix client. We have probably been running like this for about 5 year maybe more.

 

Since the switch I haven't had to worry about backups or applying updates at all...bliss! 😁

 

Like a lot of primary schools we only have a few users and the teachers never touch it.

[GREED]

I work in a junior school in Hampshire and most of us have been using SIMS.net hosted by our LEA using a citrix client. We have probably been running like this for about 5 year maybe more.

 

Soooo so close to being offered Aspen ah those were the days!

 

Since the switch I haven't had to worry about backups or applying updates at all...bliss!

 

Like a lot of primary schools we only have a few users and the teachers never touch it.

 

There is a lot to be said for the sheer simplicity for end users such as yourself and the reduction in costs and effort at your end, even if there is a cumulative increase at the LA level... Just because x solution is more efficient at one end, if this does not impact on the users on the ground, or worse impacts in a negative way (more maintenance, or maintenance at all, just as an example, etc), obviously a concern and consideration when procurement comes around. Well, I know for a fact it was in Hampshire's case.

[Bromcom-PR]

I work in a junior school in Hampshire and most of us have been using SIMS.net hosted by our LEA using a citrix client. We have probably been running like this for about 5 year maybe more.

 

Since the switch I haven't had to worry about backups or applying updates at all...bliss! 😁

 

Like a lot of primary schools we only have a few users and the teachers never touch it.

 

Many DOS applications were still in use under 'DOS emulator window' for many many years after Microsoft brought out Windows as new operating system. Such users get in a time warp and more they keep in legacy systems more difficult it gets to come out of it. Changing to 'true cloud' is like using true Windows applications and make use of features such as mouse, graphics, colour, multi-tasking etc.. Just as a Windows application user wouldn't accept monochrome, character based user interface screen or multi-tasking, a 'true cloud user' would want to give up elasticity of resources, up to 50-fold efficient use of memory, processing, power consumption etc...

 

However as a school user you may be isolated from some of tense 'true cloud' benefits but tax payers pay for this through their nose and LA support staff neither benefits from 'true cloud' features such as multi-tenancy, dynamic allocation of resources on demand so that performance degradation is avoided.

 

The fact that you say "the teachers never touch it " explains how MIS in your LA still is used as a back-office system rather than school-wide one total solution accessible from any device from anywhere eg by teachers remotely from home as well as parents (for parent portal).

[GREED]

But... It is suiting their needs. It would be wrong to force a change, for what you have listed is a many many behind the scenes benefits that too the end user would not see. The teachers will only be concerned with the features available. Right or wrong it is the reality. If SIMS is providing everything they need, do they have to change?

[Bromcom-PR]

But... It is suiting their needs. It would be wrong to force a change, for what you have listed is a many many behind the scenes benefits that too the end user would not see. The teachers will only be concerned with the features available. Right or wrong it is the reality. If SIMS is providing everything they need, do they have to change?

 

We appear to be going round in a circle here - but here for the last round.

 

1. Force to change:

No, you should never go there!!!!! There should be "a want" to change, not force.

 

2. What you have listed is a many many behind the scenes benefits that too the end user would not see

 

 

3. The teachers will only be concerned with the features available:

Apparently teachers in this school /LA are not users of MIS!!!

 

4. XXXX is providing everything they need, do they have to change? :

It is lack of education and awareness of what more one get from similar system eg efficiency, just one example you can open multiple windows when you are printing a long report (as per Carterton School' surprise!). If users are unaware of what more they can get from the alternatives then they will ask the question "why change?"

Edited March 18, 2016 by elsiegee40

[GREED]

Well we are going round in circles, because a school teacher or even admin will not care one jot that Bromcom MIS is 50 times more memory efficient. They will care if they can do the tasks they need to do. For them it comes down to what solution has all the features they need or could ever want. Perhaps there should be a conversation about specifically that ad this has completely bypassed a feature comparison, yet has focused in details on a server efficiency comparison.

 

I would push people to a certain MIS Survey for a good start on that!

 

I full agree with you that an awareness of what is available is vital, and decide then if their SIMS system still meets all their needs, or does Bromcom, Progresso, Arbor, G2, Scholarpack, ISAMS, Schoolbase, 3SYS, PASSAPP, Engage, SchoolPod or another better provide those facilities and more? I'm bewildered that any conversation like this does not have any mention of the features available ad being a high priority. I think I have said before (or possibly offline), you could have the most efficient system ever made, but if all it does is store a student forename and nothing more then it is not a viable choice (silly and extreme I know by gets the point)

[GREED]

Perhaps too you are thinking that it is the decision makers that will be more concerned with this, and you are probably right, especially the decision makers I know you and most supplier target. Perhaps more decision making groups should include a broader range of individuals including a school admin who uses the system every day. My experience, and I am sure you have your own and greater experience, says most procurement teams are unbalanced in this regard.

[matt40k]

Well we are going round in circles, because a school teacher or even admin will not care one jot that Bromcom MIS is 50 times more memory efficient.

 

I agree the technical element is pretty small in the grand discussion, but to be fair, talking about technical beniefts of apples and pears on a technical forum makes sense.

[GREED]

I agree the technical element is pretty small in the grand discussion, but to be fair, talking about technical beniefts of apples and pears on a technical forum makes sense.

 

Oh no, no no no, discussing the benefits is hugely important, I am not saying the benefits are incidental at all, I am saying that as a sales pitch to end users it is a small part. Which as a supplier of a product is where the money lies!

[matt40k]

I'm not saying discussing them isn't important, I'm just saying the venue is wrong to have a wider discussion. It's why we're keep going round in circles. We need new blood - the blood of our enem.. I mean our customers - those teachers and the lovely office staff.

[winng]

I believe the customers (those of us working in schools and using these systems/supporting these systems) are more concerned about what an MIS can do for us and how easy it is to use and maintain.

 

Consequently, I am not overly bothered about its efficiencies and technical achievements although I recognise they may impact on the pricing model.

[Michael]

The definition of 'cloud' whatever you're hosting is quite simple really -

 

Other than a browser (as the local application), there should be no other requirements -

 

- No VPN client or similar

- No Plugin or similar

- No Citrix client or similar

- No Remote Desktop Client or similar

- Optional - Downloadable content, into a localised application such as MS Office/Open Office

 

Accessibility -

 

- Multi-browser compatible - Yes - IE, Edge, Chrome, FireFox, Safari

- Multi-platform compatible - Yes - Windows, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux

 

As per the example of SIMS.net (as some have commented), the hosting charges are probably high, simply because the System Requirements on a localised server are also high. Migrating the service, or part of the service to a remote or cloud location does not optimise or change how it operates. If it requires 16GB+ of memory locally, it'll still require the same or possibly more in the cloud (due to other delivery services).

 

A natively written, highly scalable and adaptable cloud platform is what schools require; not just a migration exercise to tick a box.

[matt40k]

4 years... not much has changed...