David Cameron: Local councils running schools will become 'a thing of the past'

[Bromcom-PR]

Quote Originally Posted by Banjo View Post (http://www.edugeek.net/forums/mis-systems/166810-advanced-learning-query-2.html)

 

I agree, last weeks budget has changed things around. It makes the timing of the general release of SIMS 8 all the more interesting. Release the at the end of 16 early 17 and Capita potentially miss out on the 17,000 or so schools having to re-licence SIMS 7 as they change to academies before moving on (and licensing) SIMS 8. Or sit back and take the risk that schools won't move suppliers to a cloud based solution when they convert, take the SIMS 7 licence fees and then again when SIMS 8 comes out in 2019/20. The agony of choice :-)

 

 

Interesting scenarios. However at all times, one needs to overlay with key advice given in the DfE/Becta Report of 2010 which clearly singles out, re: move from legacy Windows -based application to "cloud":

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...n_mis_2010.pdf

 

Page 4 - para 1.18

 

"Generational changes in the nature of the products, for example, the upgrade from a DOS-based product to a Windows- based product, or from a local area network (LAN) based product to a “cloud” based product, would if challenged be likely to be regarded as sufficiently material to require the change to be competitively procured by the contracting authority (Paragraphs 6.8 to 6.12). "

 

Accordingly, if LAs are still in existence, for legal compliance - LAs and schools/academies will need to hold a fair and transparent procurement process.

 

Therefore for LAs, schools and academies, "upgrade" from legacy Windows to Cloud is a redline and not an option!

 




[GREED]

No... it isn't.

 

This will only apply to large deals likely in the domain of LAs; individual schools will fall below the financial limit for OJEU. MATs or group procurements, may do and would need to check individually.

 

Will the database be significantly changing is the next question - more than is deemed reasonable? Maybe. So then is it only a large interface change? For sure. Does this mean it is significantly different? Only time will tell I have no where near close to the answer about what SIMS 8 will be like.

 

I'm very concerned that there is forceful language going on insinuating that schools MUST do x y and z, and saying it is not an option, even at this early stage - and advice coming from a competitor as well... seems convenient advice.

 

Absolutely schools to take this as an opportunity to review the MIS and is it now/going to be fit for purpose, getting the best out of their MIS still, is there something better or more cost effective out there. Schools should take time to access what the costs are in the procurement, and if a full OJEU process is needed (unlikely). If deciding to procure, do it properly, get some people in and have a look at what is on offer. BUT if you are sticking with what you have, you are NOT being forced to fully reprocure.

 

And finally - the BECTA report is not a mandate, I'll just leave that there...

[psydii]

On the topic of the cloud:

 

I wonder how successful migrations will be when we're all locked into the cloud.

 

For example Bromcom built a migration toolset to get data from Facility into their MIS by having access to the actual Facility database and being able (I assume) to sit with customers as they used Facility to check what columns held the relevant data.

 

Has Bromcom (say) done a migration FROM (say) Progresso? Can it be done as completely as a migration from an on-prem database?

[GREED]

On the topic of the cloud:

 

I wonder how successful migrations will be when we're all locked into the cloud.

 

For example Bromcom built a migration toolset to get data from Facility into their MIS by having access to the actual Facility database and being able (I assume) to sit with customers as they used Facility to check what columns held the relevant data.

 

Has Bromcom (say) done a migration FROM (say) Progresso? Can it be done as completely as a migration from an on-prem database?

 

Sure you can - because most of the time a migration is just a whole bunch of reports/exports anyway

 

No competing MIS will have access to another's database like a partner or integrator will do (ergo be a partner themselves, have access to APIs and the likes).

[Banjo]

. Will the database be significantly changing is the next question - more than is deemed reasonable? Maybe. So then is it only a large interface change? For sure. Does this mean it is significantly different? Only time will tell I have no where near close to the answer about what SIMS 8 will be like.

 

SIMS 8 does look awesome. However, LA's wont be buying SIMS 8 licenses in 'bulk' (assuming the continuation of the current licensing model) unless the roll out of the new version is before the academisation program gets into full swing. There would need to be some mechanism in the license for the LA to transfer the license to the school upon conversion and recoup that cost. This option does not exist at present with the majority of licenses LA's hold for the current version of SIMS.

 

Here's a thought, LA's can buy FFT licenses for academies, so maybe in the near future, LA's will be able to sell SIMS 8 licenses and AM to academies even if we can't host the software. This might avoid the likely fragmentation of the market place if schools are left to their own devices. Some might argue this is a good thing.

[matt40k]

Nope, every maintained school is going to throw a ton of relicensing money directly at Capita. No LA involvement. LA can't transfer the license, Capita won't allow it - ignore that other folks do (points at Microsoft). They won't be looking at changing tools because they'll be too busy worrying about a million other things that they have to worry about as an Academy - really they should look at the market, but really, there are only so many hours in the day! School will be now rushing to convert early because that pot of money to help convert is going to dry up pretty quick. In short, buy Capita shares.

 

And the cynic in my says by 2020, it'll be going the other way and Academies will be coming back up LA... well (combined) LAs

 

From what I've heard, they're doing some features that will work in SIMS 7, it just won't be as feature rich.

[elsiegee40]

Nope, every maintained school is going to throw a ton of relicensing money directly at Capita. No LA involvement. LA can't transfer the license, Capita won't allow it - ignore that other folks do (points at Microsoft). They won't be looking at changing tools because they'll be too busy worrying about a million other things that they have to worry about as an Academy - really they should look at the market, but really, there are only so many hours in the day!

 

^ This

[BKGarry]

Well now this is where it gets interesting, the last time I checked, if your school was previously a "Grant Maintained" school and used SIMS (very likely) and you transferred over to the bulk LA license there was a clause somewhere stating that your license can be transferred back to Capita. While this is good news for Secondary Schools that was previously "Grant Maintained" this is not good for Primary Schools and other institutions that were never such a body.

 

Now this was back when the Coalition got into power and first made academies so Capita may have somehow closed the loophole by now. It would be interesting to see what happens with all the PFI contracts as well, since those contracts are between the LEA/LA and the Contractors and not the Foundation schools, so basically the LEA is the one loosing even more money.

[Bromcom-PR]

No... it isn't.

 

This will only apply to large deals likely in the domain of LAs; individual schools will fall below the financial limit for OJEU. MATs or group procurements, may do and would need to check individually.

 

Will the database be significantly changing is the next question - more than is deemed reasonable? Maybe. So then is it only a large interface change? For sure. Does this mean it is significantly different? Only time will tell I have no where near close to the answer about what SIMS 8 will be like.

 

I'm very concerned that there is forceful language going on insinuating that schools MUST do x y and z, and saying it is not an option, even at this early stage - and advice coming from a competitor as well... seems convenient advice.

 

Absolutely schools to take this as an opportunity to review the MIS and is it now/going to be fit for purpose, getting the best out of their MIS still, is there something better or more cost effective out there. Schools should take time to access what the costs are in the procurement, and if a full OJEU process is needed (unlikely). If deciding to procure, do it properly, get some people in and have a look at what is on offer. BUT if you are sticking with what you have, you are NOT being forced to fully reprocure.

 

And finally - the BECTA report is not a mandate, I'll just leave that there...

 

Redline / "No... it isn't."

This is not subjective or opinion based. It is neither rules laid by DfE/Becta. The report is based on procurement law acting like a "messenger" - it is no good killing the messenger!

 

Fair and transparent procurement:

This does not necessarily mean OJEU tender. So long as a fair and transparent procurement process is followed. In the recent months a good number of MATs have reviewed their legacy MIS systems and they all switched to cloud technology - eg ARK MAT, Harris Federation and Minerva Trust. Also many individual school and academies - results are still pending and hence can not name them.

 

"the BECTA report is not a mandate"

Becta report being a mandate is not the question. Compliance to procurement law is.

[matt40k]

Compliance to procurement law is.

 

I doubt we'll see many individual schools being sued over breaking the procurement law. Doesn't mean people won't be fired over it however! In the grand scheme of things, even £20k isn't that much when you compare it to agency cover staff costs, which has a much larger cost both in terms of actual finance and in student performance

 

Be interesting to see what replaces the current MIS framework (RM1500) - Information Management and Learning Services | Crown Commercial Service - I hope they replace\renew it with something because it was basically a pick list of "safe" suppliers. Hopefully you folks know more. Anyway, good luck all you non-Capita MIS suppliers I hope you prove me wrong now the LA "blocker" is gone (well going)

[GREED]

The BECTA report is not representing procurement law.

 

Interesting how only tenders Bromcom have won have been mentioned and very positively here. This thread is fast turning into promotional material.

 

If the report or what it was referring to was applicable and mandate and had an effect on single schools, in the 6 years since many many many schools will have fallen foul by now... they have not.

 

Please can we stop scaremongering that every schools HAS to be going through full procurement processes. It is sensible to take the opportunity to look at the MIS you have, make sure it is giving you value for money... but like switching any other software out there to a competitor it is not mandatory.

[Norton]

This proving to be a very interesting debate. The fundamental principle is that all schools and academies (as public bodies) are held to account on an ongoing basis for their effective use of public funds. This does not purely apply to MIS software but everything a school purchases. Testing the market on a regular basis to ensure that funds are being deployed effectively is simply best practice - there is nothing scary about it and it is part of the everyday running of a proficient school or academy chain.

 

In my view whether the purchase price (which includes the full price over the total length of the contract) exceeds the OJEU threshold is irrelevant. It is simply best practice to reassure yourself that you have the best product for your needs at regular intervals. Typically you would not select the cheapest option but in procurement speak the 'most economically advantageous' option. Your evaluation would clearly include the functionality and price but also the cost of transition and essentially any end of contract transition costs. The latter (the exit plan and costs) is often forgotten both during evaluation and in negotiating the the contract with the supplier and results in the lock-in that many schools are experiencing today.

 

The thread of this discussion seems to imply that if you test the market you are in danger of having to change supplier. If your current supplier comes out top in a fair, open and transparent evaluation that is fine. If an alternative supplier emerges then actually that will show the incumbent that they need to up their game. Market testing is proven to drive real benefits in the quality of software and associated services on offer to our schools.

 

My final point is that although the move to Academy status may be a burning platform in licensing terms that initiates this market testing, those Academies that are 3 to 5 years in will now be coming to a point where they need to formally review their provision once again. Audit Committees will need to be on top of this if they are to apply appropriate governance to the school finances. The cycle continues and it is simply life in the public sector if you are accountable for the use of public funds.

[Norton]

I doubt we'll see many individual schools being sued over breaking the procurement law. Doesn't mean people won't be fired over it however! In the grand scheme of things, even £20k isn't that much when you compare it to agency cover staff costs, which has a much larger cost both in terms of actual finance and in student performance

 

Be interesting to see what replaces the current MIS framework (RM1500) - Information Management and Learning Services | Crown Commercial Service - I hope they replace\renew it with something because it was basically a pick list of "safe" suppliers. Hopefully you folks know more. Anyway, good luck all you non-Capita MIS suppliers I hope you prove me wrong now the LA "blocker" is gone (well going)

 

I agree that Framework Agreements of this type can be enormously helpful in providing a list of quality assured suppliers for market testing through mini-competition every 3 or 5 years. Suppliers that were awarded contracts on the IMLS framework had to pass a rigorous testing and evaluation process. Frameworks previously let by Becta also involved an extensive testing process to ensure that suppliers could actually deliver what they said they would with active intervention if things went wrong.

 

The recent trend of the Crown Commercial Service has been to reduce the amount of practical testing that it undertakes. Under frameworks like G-Cloud testing and evaluation is now left to the customer at the mini-competition phase. If further CCS framework for schools are forthcoming it will be important to check exactly what has been evaluated at contract award and what has not as many aspects may have been 'self-certified' by the supplier. However, there is plenty of experience of running mini-competitions under such frameworks if you need to access it.

 

Whatever the level of evaluation undertaken there are still real benefits from undertaking a procurement using one of these Framework Agreements. Much of the OJEU process has been undertaken for you and there is minimal chance of challenge if you follow the process for the mini-competition described in the framework guidelines. Additionally all the legal work around the terms and conditions has been paid for and completed. There is scope in the schedules for flexibility to local needs but the main balance of the T&Cs has moved in favour of the customer rather than having to accept the suppliers terms unchallenged.

[Bromcom-PR]

The BECTA report is not representing procurement law.

 

Interesting how only tenders Bromcom have won have been mentioned and very positively here.

++++

Please can we stop scaremongering that every schools HAS to be going through full procurement processes. It is sensible to take the opportunity to look at the MIS you have, make sure it is giving you value for money... but like switching any other software out there to a competitor it is not mandatory.

 

DfE/Becta Report 2010 as it's title suggests is guidance on compliance for LAs and schools on the procurement law. It was produced with legal /procurement law input from one of most prominent law firms in the UK The passage of 6 years does not make it any less relevant for schools, academies MATs and LAs. In fact in the recent 12 months, it is becoming clear that MATs (and individual academies) are taking compliance to procurement law more seriously than LAs (individual schools).

 

The UK is the only Western country where 90% of its schools are still on legacy technology rather than cloud. Root reasons for this are explained in the DfE/Becta Report 2010 and also OFT Report March 2014. The wasted cost using legacy systems rather than cloud systems runs into £millions and the £millions are spent on servers in schools and/or vastly ineffiency caused in "hosting" legacy MIS software as Same old Software as a Service" - SoSaaS - see links below:

 

Cloudwashing of client-server SaaS

 

NIST and the cloudwashing of client-server SaaS – diginomica

 

 

After all public purse is accountable and our focus should be applying funds available for best use at all times.

 

MIS Market - reset/re-boot:

Over the past 20 years numerous reports written by DFE/Becta, GCHQ, OFT etc.. On the importance of school MIS in education system and the severe stagnation. With David Cameron announcement and cloud era now established, it is high time to allow the market to make most of this lifetime new opportunity this brings and the market to experience a hard reset/reboot.

 

So let's keep this as an adult discussion without insinuations of scaremongering or self-promotion. The topic is a very heart searching and deeper discussions as the title states: " David Cameron: Local councils running schools will become 'a thing of the past'" and subject matter is the likely impact on each and every stake holder of this forum.

[GREED]

Related to communications outside of this forum I will no longer be involved in this conversation.