FoI Request re: Upgrading Capita SIMS7 to a Cloud-based version

[DMurray]

Has anyone seen this FoI to DfE?

 

Upgrading Capita SIMS7 to a Cloud-based version

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/upgrading_capita_sims7_to_a_clou

Edited February 27, 2019 by elsiegee40
Thread title amended to reflect FoI not a Circular

[Steve21]

Once again it seems the so called MIS alliance who regularly post anti capita postings on here are making reasons for people to upgrade to “their” solutions (their being referenced as they refused to acknowledge who these companies were when asked on here[emoji14])

 

Just like previous posts where they said “dfe says don’t use capita” all this is saying is people should be looking for best value and regularly reviewing things, not as they keep saying to stop using capita. It’s down to each school to look at what they need and not just auto renew which should apply to all systems [emoji14]

 

Steve

Edited February 27, 2019 by elsiegee40

[bfelton]

It would be interesting to know who the UK MIS Alliance is so we can fully understand their motivations.

[vikpaw]

Once again it seems the so called MIS alliance who regularly post anti capita postings on here are making reasons for people to upgrade to “their” solutions (their being referenced as they refused to acknowledge who these companies were when asked on here[emoji14])

 

Just like previous posts where they said “dfe says don’t use capita” all this is saying is people should be looking for best value and regularly reviewing things, not as they keep saying to stop using capita. It’s down to each school to look at what they need and not just auto renew which should apply to all systems [emoji14]

 

Steve

It's funny that the letter only applies if you're going to upgrade to cloud or a significant change in product. If there is no material change to the product then a school could argue they want to continue using it. Even on an extension, comparing like for like (say you don't trust cloud or prefer on-site) could likely lead to you sticking with SIMS or existing product.

 

The only time this might apply is if someone is looking to move to SIMS 8, but look at the sticky thread from 2 years ago regarding the Capita press release. It's hardly an issue to worry about.

 

This will show the letter went to everyone, and if an establishment now renews a contract, this can be used as evidence to say they didn't follow procedure. Great, I'd love to be told that by a sales guy, really gonna warm me to the company.

 

It seems someone is trying to kill ants with a sledgehammer

 

I laughed when the initial response from the DFE addressed the author (presumably from a DFE department) who penned the letter in question! Mostly due to the phrasing of enquiry and anonymous sign-off, but it shows they are just going through the motions.

 

I laughed harder when the response says you can get access to the list of the recipients on this website, but we don't have responsibility to maintain it. They're only the DFE sending a circular to all their establishments; who needs to ensure the data is up to date?

 

It would be interesting to know who the UK MIS Alliance is so we can fully understand their motivations.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure everyone has worked out that Bromcom is a member, I confirmed this with the MD at BETT.

 

Unfortunately, he wouldn't reveal the other members because he "would have to get their permission first"

 

Sounds a bit fishy to me, what use is an alliance promoting activities and fairness if you can't know who is part of it? It seems like this is not an alliance for us as consumers, but something altogether different. What's with all the smoke and mirrors?!

 

Nonetheless, I thought surely the other MIS suppliers would be happy and proud to stand together for the good of the community and be singing out loud about their involvement, with the intention of promoting themselves and their products. After all, who doesn't want to be seen to be looking out for the best interests of educational establishments.

 

Alas, not a single vendor, nor integrator, I spoke to at BETT had even heard about the MIS Alliance or what it is doing. I'm happy to be corrected if they would like to contact me, or post publicly.

Food for thought...

 

= = = = =

Please note all views are my own and not representative of EduGeek, Admins, Moderators, or any company mentioned. Any mistakes are my own.

Edited February 27, 2019 by vikpaw

[Bromcom-PR]

Unfortunately, he wouldn't reveal the other members because he "would have to get their permission first"

 

Sounds a bit fishy to me, what use is an alliance promoting activities and fairness if you can't know who is part of it? It seems like this is not an alliance for us as consumers, but something altogether different. What's with all the smoke and mirrors?!

 

Nonetheless, I thought surely the other MIS suppliers would be happy and proud to stand together for the good of the community and be singing out loud about their involvement, with the intention of promoting themselves and their products. After all, who doesn't want to be seen to be looking out for the best interests of educational establishments.

 

Alas, not a single vendor, nor integrator, I spoke to at BETT had even heard about the MIS Alliance or what it is doing. I'm happy to be corrected if they would like to contact me, or post publicly.

 

 

Presently the MIS Alliance activity is not user facing (school or LAs). It is working with industry stake holders to address concerns they have and in near future their mission will include publicising cloud benefits and cloud on boarding / off boarding protocol and ease of switch etc...

 

The Alliance members are all UK's fast growing cloud vendors, committed moving schools to cloud platform so to save substantial costs and bring benefits of Internet era. They all disclosed themselves to any stakeholder that so far Alliance dealt with. The intention has been to have an announcement when the mission switches to user facing matters which foresee later this year.

 

This thread has not about the Alliance but about DfE Circular about upgrading to cloud and compliance to procurement regulations. As an EduGeek old timer @vikpaw should know better to keep the thread on the subject rather than witch hunting or shooting the messenger.

[bfelton]

I wonder how strong that alliance will be if one of it's number becomes significantly more successful than the others.

[FishCustard]

The Alliance members are all UK's fast growing cloud vendors, committed moving schools to cloud platform so to save substantial costs and bring benefits of Internet era.

 

You speak as if cloud services are always the best option, and on-premise hosted alternatives are prima facie inferior. In my experience that has not always been the case - in some cases cloud alternatives end up costing a lot more.

[elsiegee40]

This thread has not about the Alliance but about DfE Circular about upgrading to cloud and compliance to procurement regulations.

 

Correction. This thread is about an FoI request.

 

I wonder how strong that alliance will be if one of it's number becomes significantly more successful than the others.

 

Alleged alliance. If they’re so secret squirrel “not user facing” then why publicise on EduGeek with tens of thousands of members around the world?

[vikpaw]

Presently the MIS Alliance activity is not user facing (school or LAs). It is working with industry stake holders to address concerns they have and in near future their mission will include publicising cloud benefits and cloud on boarding / off boarding protocol and ease of switch etc...

 

The Alliance members are all UK's fast growing cloud vendors, committed moving schools to cloud platform so to save substantial costs and bring benefits of Internet era. They all disclosed themselves to any stakeholder that so far Alliance dealt with. The intention has been to have an announcement when the mission switches to user facing matters which foresee later this year.

 

This thread has not about the Alliance but about DfE Circular about upgrading to cloud and compliance to procurement regulations. As an EduGeek old timer @vikpaw should know better to keep the thread on the subject rather than witch hunting or shooting the messenger.

 

Thanks for the response - lots to glean from your answer.

Subject = an FOI request, the entity and motives behind such a request are valid considerations. By rights the subject and first post should be edited to reflect the topic, I don't see that Capita was mentioned nor Cloud so it's rather misleading. In fact if the DFE wanted to target Capita they would use census data and write to Capita schools.

 

Messenger = @DMurray - thanks for highlighting this - noted using the traditional EduGeek button.

 

No witches being hunted, just the truth. The circular does not reference SIMS7, nor only upgrading to Cloud, but interestingly the FOI request does. I'm not sure who the witch is in this scenario (Capita or the school/LA), but again as a community it's useful to know and understand the motives.

 

I am old, no need to rub it in!

 

I'm struggling to see who the stakeholders are if it's not schools nor LAs, and most MIS companies hadn't heard of the Alliance. Are we talking about Azure and AWS, or Virgin, BT, The Cloud?

As I said at BETT, I don't see the point of the Alliance, but that's fine, it's not public facing, so doesn't need to be in the public domain, it just keeps popping up with no substance behind it.

[elsiegee40]

By rights the subject and first post should be edited to reflect the topic, I don't see that Capita was mentioned nor Cloud so it's rather misleading.

Point taken. Title of thread amended to reflect actual title of FoI request

[Steve21]

Presently the MIS Alliance activity is not user facing (school or LAs). It is working with industry stake holders to address concerns they have and in near future their mission will include publicising cloud benefits and cloud on boarding / off boarding protocol and ease of switch etc...

 

Which is a load of cob to be honest, as the so-called "MIS alliance" has already had multiple threads deleted off Edugeek, for the same reasons I noted above. The bias advertising, and spreading of false information which is starting to feel like a hate campaign lol.

 

If it wasn't user facing, why was it being posted here?

 

The Alliance members are all UK's fast growing cloud vendors, committed moving schools to cloud platform so to save substantial costs and bring benefits of Internet era. They all disclosed themselves to any stakeholder that so far Alliance dealt with. The intention has been to have an announcement when the mission switches to user facing matters which foresee later this year.

 

Again, yet to see any information that links to the above, apart from the direct anti-Capita stance that's been made blatantly clear by the twisting nature of information they're "providing".

 

This thread has not about the Alliance but about DfE Circular about upgrading to cloud and compliance to procurement regulations. As an EduGeek old timer @vikpaw should know better to keep the thread on the subject rather than witch hunting or shooting the messenger.

 

The DfE Circular, that was raised by the "MIS alliance" that was raised directly in regards to a Capita issue... See my point yet?

 

The only witch hunt that seems to be going on is a misdirection campaign against the market-leader in an attempt to scaremonger schools into changing to "insert any of the secretive companies involved in such alliance"

 

See below for past examples of this so called non-user facing alliance posting to the public on Edugeek and being directly linked with this FOI:

 

Introducing UK MIS Alliance & Cambridgeshire County Council’s decision:

 

As the UK’s main MIS suppliers we have being working collectively...

UK-MIS-Alliance

 

Not sure how you are trying to argue these aren't linked @Bromcom-PR ?

 

Steve

[DMurray]

I appeared to have caused a stir and not intended.

 

All I wanted to hear if anyone received in the school the DfE circular referred to int the FoI and what people thought of it.

 

In our school no one seems to know about it. A supplier (not the one named in this thread) pointed out to me.

[matt40k]

It's taken me 30 mins to unpick what the FoI was about. So as I understand it...

 

Richard Willacy used to work at the Department of Education IT Category Manager (whatever that is) on the ICT Category Lead Schools Commercial Team (whatever that is) has sent a email to a number of schools basically saying hey, check procurement regs before just ticking that auto renew button. Which is good advise, friendly reminder, except...

 

"An example of this could be upgrading your systems from a Disc Operated System (DOS) or Local Area Network (LAN) based product to a Cloud-based product. These would normally be regarded as significant enough to require a competitive procurement by you as a contracting authority as opposed to automatic extension."

 

I'm sorry, DOS, LAN. Seriously. Who does this remind you of?

 

Then we do a bit of digging and he's currently seeking opportunities and has his own company "ARDUBYA LTD" which his been running for a while.

 

Anyway, the FoI was about when was that email send and who was it sent to... which they've unhelpfully not actually answered but fobbed off with - you can get the info from Edubase (or whatever its called these days).

 

So that's 30mins of my life gone.

[vikpaw]

@DMurray did you check who in your school should have received it? Maybe you haven’t been keeping the data up to date.

 

Which MIS do you use? Perhaps you weren’t targeted.

 

Was this supplier a “cloud” supplier?

 

Out of interest would you privately share which school you are at with a moderator?

@matt40k perhaps he got axed for using bad sources of data. Or sending unofficial emails!

[matt40k]

Hey, not even sure he got axed. Heck not even sure he even worked at the DfE! You know people can lie on LinkedIn - just before we start quoting possible bad sources of data

[CloudGeek]

I must say - not an adult like dialogue.

 

 

 

Was this supplier a “cloud” supplier?

 

 

Surely we all know that all MIS suppliers offering is cloud except ‘C’. Yes? Am I missing something?

[synaesthesia]

From what I understand the FoI request is merely thus:

 

1. Please confirm the date of this circular.

2. Please provide breakdown of numbers of recipients of this circular by their addressee types.

 

Followed up then by the following annotation:

 

This DfE Circular hass a significant importance for LAs, schools and academies of all types that use Capita SIMS and also FMS6.

 

Capita representatives publicly stated that LAs or schools do not need to reprocure their school MIS and Finance software and they can simply upgrade to a cloud version when it is erased.

 

DfE Circular indeed states clearly this is not the case doing so it will be in breach of procurement law.

 

In fact some LAs already started terminating Capita SIMS and FMS6 contract and proceeded with open procurement for cloud based MIS and Finance. For more details contact uk.mis[email protected].

 

So it seems to me as if someone is just seeking clarification? Not sure an FoI request is the right way of doing that, and of course don't think that alleged circular is well thought out or written but still...

Edited February 27, 2019 by ZeroHour
Adding quote tags for clarity

[elsiegee40]

. For more details contact uk.mis[email protected] .

 

.

 

So this alleged alliance of industry professional organisations uses a gmail address?! Not a proper business email. That sounds well dodgy!

 

If “they” (and I am yet to be convinced there is more than one organisation involved) had any credibility they have completely lost it with me now!!!

Edited February 27, 2019 by elsiegee40

[XiJ]

I see alliance and read cartel.

 

That said I think SIMS is not fit for purpose and stuck in the 90’s. Cloud MIS is the future*

 

*There is no cloud. It’s just someone else’s computer.

[matt40k]

...Suspect its so its in the public rather then its a FoI

 

Be interested in that reference:

DfE Circular indeed states clearly this is not the case doing so it will be in breach of procurement law.

 

I know on here I have seen Capita imply you could just upgrade, but this is just sales tactics - no one trusted a sales person do they? It's like when they say "limited offer" or "we are bespoke, no one else does this" they are just trying to close the sale, irony this normally makes most sensible people turn away

 

 

I must say - not an adult like dialogue

Am I missing something?

 

Surely we all know that all MIS suppliers offering is cloud except ‘C’. Yes? Am I missing something?

Let's be clear. All suppliers are offering a cloud MIS - including Capita. Just some are more real then others and some are more cloud then others. Let's not get caught up marketing speak, every company has a different idea what cloud is. Lets move on, we've already said certain supplier have massive technical debt, cloud doesn't come into it. If you want to go down the marketing bull... why aren't any supplier blockchaining the pupil records? Why aren't they using AI to improve the back office operations, why aren't they machine learning insight into their data lake of school information. (Sorry for the IBM sales spam that will now start appearing).

Edited February 27, 2019 by elsiegee40

[DrCheese]

As an EduGeek old timer @vikpaw should know better to keep the thread on the subject rather than witch hunting or shooting the messenger.

 

lol some PR company rep you are.

[vikpaw]

I must say - not an adult like dialogue.

 

Surely we all know that all MIS suppliers offering is cloud except ‘C’. Yes? Am I missing something?

 

Really? Is there a need for a comment like that?

 

I use an MIS that is not Capita nor Cloud. Perhaps you should speak to Bromcom about what “True Cloud” is, I doubt they agree that all suppliers are Cloud.

 

I agree with @matt40k , no need to labour the point on specifics around Cloud. I use hosted servers and connect by RDP.

My reason for the question is to see if it is a true cloud supplier that is pointing this out to the OP.

 

I actually think the original post was asking about whether the circular was seen, but using the FOI and giving little details based on the response is weird. I actually thought from other posts that the OP was not based at a school but in support delivery or an LA or heck even a supplier.

 

The FOI was answered I think accurately. We have a date and list of schools. Probably not the best choice they made using that website as a source which they implied but the information is free now.

 

I’d want to check my school details on there to see who they supposedly emailed. Was it accurate @DMurray ?

 

I think the annotation @synaesthesia quoted has hit the nail on the head about motive, however, to publicly make a claim like that without citing an example is dodgy ground. Surely that evidence could be taken straight to the DFE as bad / false advertising without the need to prove this communication actually went out.

 

I’m still unclear what we nor the Alliance have gained from this. If the annotation clarifies the purpose there is no need for the FOI, just show the evidence and quote the already existing guidance on procurement.

 

The site states there is a further response as yet not processed or made public. What could that be? Can you check and update it please @Bromcom?

 

I hope the next step is not to direct an FOI at each school and ask if they received the email. As the only company publicly associated with the Alliance this will not do much for Bromcom’s PR.

If it is, 22,000 ish should do it. Then we can get @matt40k to do a nice PowetBI visual with the responses.

 

Without looking at the list I’m going to assume most went to generic emails and/or were treated as SPAM so the circular should probably go out again to a more targeted audience or sent through more reliable channels such as the LAs where appropriate.

 

@DrCheese

 

Also, using GMail? Surely industry stakeholders won’t take an organisation seriously if they receive comms from a throwaway account. If the DFE circular went out from a GMail it might explain why so far no-one has said they’ve received it.

[elsiegee40]

It does appear one other company may be involved in the UK MIS Alliance... The FoI is submitted in the name of Richard Willacy. Googling ’Richard Willacy Bromcom’ brings up the Team page at SchoolsBuddy which describes itself as “The complete schools portal” where Richard Willacy is described as “Financial Expert”

hxxps://www. schoolsbuddy.com/the-team/ (link deliberately broken)

 

Apart from that, the ‘alliance’ has a LinkedIn page with 8 connections, an FoI request, a gmail address, multiple attempts to publicise itself on EduGeek and that is all.

 

Personal opinion: This appears to be an ‘organisation’ with an anti-SIMS axe to grind... and I do not think the less than professional presentation detailed above reflects well on the business(es) associated with it.

Edited February 28, 2019 by elsiegee40

[vikpaw]

I think it's more likely this guy https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwillacy/ , photos don't match, which is the one Matt found.

Good to know about SchoolsBuddy though