Supporting ethical MIS procurement

[Bromcom_mark]

Bromcom is a tireless advocate for fair procurement practices in the MIS sector. As such, we read with interest a blog by Paul Wyatt-Pike on Ethical Procurement in Education: Referrals v Kickbacks:

 

The increasing chatter around ethical procurement has become more prominent, particularly due to the thoughtful contributions from the Wisdom Partnership and experts like Finnemore Consulting. I couldn’t resist adding my observations to the conversation. Specifically, I focus on Local Authority schools; I will reference MIS only for context, shedding light on the often blurred lines between kickbacks and referral fees... Read more.

 

Anyone interested in this topic may also like to know that there is an independently run, public LinkedIn group on the topic of school IT procurement – it aims to raise awareness of procurement best practice: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12863531/.

[PaulWP]

I'm grateful for your reference to my blog, Mark—your acknowledgment is appreciated. While the blog primarily contextualises Management Information System, its core focus is on procurement, equity, and compliance across all public sector procurements. I welcome comments and insights from all readers of the blog, whether they agree or differ with my perspectives—I understand that viewpoints can be diverse and varied.

[Steve21]

I'm not sure how independent a group created by a consultant is that is now being pushed within days by a MIS supplier really can be said to be... This was posted on Edugeek a few days ago in another thread as a "I’ve just started a LinkedIn group"

 

Same with the linking to a blog of someone who has been directly advocating your court case on multiple previous occasions?

 

 

It would only same fair to announce if you have prior contact from someone before referencing it especially considering the nature of this post being about ethics and fairness!

 

Steve

[gaz350b]

“tireless advocate” = “we’ll sue your ass”

 

If all the MIS products were equal and mature enough I would understand but finding one that fits your organisations needs is very difficult at the moment.

[DrCheese]

The irony of complaining about corruption & influencing whist stating this.

 

that there is an independently run, public LinkedIn group on the topic of school IT procurement

 

Right let's have a look at this...

 

This Group is funded by Bromcom, in an effort to promote best practice in the field of education procurement

 

So it's not independent then is it?

 

I'm not sure how independent a group created by a consultant is that is now being pushed within days by a MIS supplier really can be said to be... This was posted on Edugeek a few days ago in another thread as a "I’ve just started a LinkedIn group"

Same with the linking to a blog of someone who has been directly advocating your court case on multiple previous occasions?

 

It would only same fair to announce if you have prior contact from someone before referencing it especially considering the nature of this post being about ethics and fairness!

 

Steve

 

Yup - You got it! This does exactly the opposite of what the OP is trying to promote. It reads as "Unfairness & influence is wrong unless I'm the one doing it"

 

 

Bromcom is a great product & sells well on it's own merits - Don't take the worst of the Capita/SIMS era & carry it forward :/

Edited September 24, 2023 by DrCheese

[vikpaw]

Oh. Boy.

[Mr.Ben]

“tireless advocate” = “we’ll sue your ass”

 

If all the MIS products were equal and mature enough I would understand but finding one that fits your organisations needs is very difficult at the moment.

This is the key part.

 

I spend hours with senior leaders in our large Trust identifying our needs, what compromises will are willing to make and writing requirements.

 

Sometimes these requirements effectively limit us to one vendor.

 

For example: I have a requirement to allow our central directors and team access to all MIS data (for Edu data, HR, payroll, governance etc).

 

I would write into a requirement that this must be an account that is SSO'd with Azure AD, and that all schools must be accessible from a single account. Changing a password must take less than 30 seconds.

 

Why that last one? Some of the Cloud MISs deploy each school separately, meaning there needs to be an account in every school - that potentially means changing 50 passwords if it isn't centrally linked, which takes hours. If you have a turnover of central staff that can take hours of time to fix.

 

We are in a situation where a Monopoly has had free reign to stifle innovation for 2 decades and it seems has now failed through lack of innovation, falling back on locking in customers with contract terms . New MIS vendors are trying to catch up with 30 years of development in 10.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the way out of this is contractual.

 

Effectively frameworks and procurement 'specialists' (I use the term loosely) need to understand the market, the needs of schools/trusts and be willing to have significant penalties within contracts.

 

For example:

 

Instead of having a quality requirement where you know only one vendor will fit the bill, have a contract term that states a feature must be implemented and maintained by X point in an implementation.

 

If this is not met, then a payment of 10% of the contract value would be returned to the Trust. If it is still not met within a further X months, then a further 30% of the contract value is returned.

 

That suggested it does need a limit - effectively what is thought to be the 'profit' on a contract - say 80%. You only need to read about the privatisation of the probation service to find out why unlimited fines/payments are not a good idea!

 

We need as a group to be challenging these companies to meet our needs, not pandering to what they think is fair.

 

It's like a football team claiming it's not a fair competition because the other team have better players.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Mr.Ben

[PaulWP]

Good afternoon Mr. Ben, hopefully my North Yorkshire dialect is too obvious.

 

I get your concerns about the complexities of procuring MIS products and the challenges in aligning them your Trusts needs.

 

While your proposition regarding contractual obligations and associated penalties is interesting, its practical execution may be inherently fraught. Operating with a system that doesn’t meet all organisational needs can inevitably lead to inefficiencies, potentially compromising the overall functionality and performance of the trust for a period of time. The effect of such suboptimal operations can be profound, impacting not just the immediate workflow but also the long-term objectives of the organisation...and a very dodgy relationship with your supplier!

 

If your requirements are absolute and there is only one supplier, then I suggest you find a DfE approved framework that provides a single source supplier that will work with you. They will serve as a pivotal conduit, ensuring compliance and overseeing the implementation and management of MIS, in adherence to agreed performance and service levels.

 

While my familiarity with MIS solutions is very basic, I do recognise the imperative nature of a thorough and compliant procurement process. It is crucial to maintain an unbiased and transparent approach throughout, thereby avoiding any semblance of a skewed process. The objective remains to achieve a symbiotic alignment between the Trusts needs, best value and the offerings of the MIS vendor.

 

I agree that it is worth having a group to continue these conversations and to challenge (not complain) and reshape your approach to vendor relationships, and maybe work together to help develop innovation - I am only saying that as I haven't got a clue if there is such a group.

 

I'll probably get my ear bent for this response but...

[PotNoodleTech]

Oh the irony of MIS suppliers lecturing us on the ethics of contracts.

[PaulWP]

Hi Steve,

 

Just responding to your mention on integrity, ethics, fairness, and transparency, I wanted to address your concerns directly. My involvement, if it was me you were referring to, in the court case was motivated by a genuine concern about the procurement methods used. My stance was independent, and I was advocating for better procurement practices in education that are fair, transparent, and unbiased.

 

I had no affiliations with any supplier in the market, and my observations were impartial. I hope this clarifies my position, and I welcome further discussions to maintain transparency and mutual respect.

 

If you had read my recent blog on LinkedIn, hopefully you will see that I continue to advocate for fair practise when it comes to procurement.

 

Cheers Paul

 

[PaulWP]

Hah, I'm glad I am not in it. If you look on my LinkedIn profile, you will see that my comments are based on my procurement experiences and not about individual suppliers...and no lecture intended

[Garacesh]

I don't want to be seen as dogpiling, but I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread.

 

Bromcom have garnered a lot of ill will with the recent lawsuit. It could be argued that this is an attempt to start an open think-tank to get a better understanding of what schools' requirements are in an MIS, to which we could point to you openly advocating for it via an official Bromcom channel rather than a sock puppet account. Sure, the discussions would be used to improve Bromcom, but as long as everything was kept open and transparent, every MIS vendor could use it. SIMS, iSAMS, Arbor, etc. This would not be a band thing.

 

If this is the case, it is very poorly-executed.

 

It could be just as easily argued that this is an underhanded attempt at astroturfing. You use the term independent, yet the group is funded directly by Bromcom with no mention of any funding from competitors*, which throws its entire so-called independence into question. You then bring in somebody who is advocating on your behalf on your ongoing litigation* who, whilst the account has existed for a while, has clearly never felt a need to join any education discussions regarding procurement (or literally anything at all) until an hour and a half after this thread was created. That looks incredibly suspicious. Colluded, even. I couldn't imagine somebody who couldn't find a single thing to post about for near a decade being active enough to spot a thread linking to his own blog that quickly.

 

Turning our attention to Paul for a moment, your LinkedIn profile displays no indication of you having ever worked within schools. Forgive me if I'm misinformed, but the closest thing I could see is Market testing with clients inclusive of the NHS, DfE, local government, and Primary Care when you worked for BT Global Services, and several instances of you consulting for education (but not working directly for). I question whether you have a thorough understanding of MIS requirements in schools, or whether you're just speaking from your experience with procurement frameworks as a consultant.

 

As to the blog post cited, with respect, that's a whole lot of words to say not really much at all - which is pretty typical for LinkedIn, truth be told. Tl;dr: Some risks exist. We all know this, those same risks are brought up time and time again when people discuss procurement. I would also draw attention to part of your 3-bullet-point summary: Impartial Consultation: Schools require unbiased help to steer through the procurement labyrinth, upholding objectivity and accountability. For what it's worth, there are many occasions with which I'd agree. But you ain't that any more. Getting involved with the lawsuit? Jumping on EduGeek for the first time in 9 just to be another corporate mouthpiece? How are any of us supposed to consider you unbiased?

 

C'mon now, Bromcom. Be better. If you want to help, this isn't the way to do it.

 

* As I do not have a LinkedIn account, nor any desire to participate in the world's largest collective love letter to stroking one's ego, I can't actually see the group. Where denoted, I'm relying on other posts in this thread for info.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Garacesh

[DrCheese]

Posting the entire "About this group" statement here from Linkedin for reference

[Garacesh]

Oh, wow, I think I gave the group too much credit! "to promote best practice in the field of education procurement"? Given the context of the lawsuit this sounds very much like a sour-grapes attempt to control what is and isn't seen as acceptable in procurement. 'Raise awareness'? 'Promote'? None of this implies any discussion at all. It's 'we have the answers, listen to us'.

 

Not a good look!

[vikpaw]

Firstly practise practice practise makes perfect…

 

We frequently find there are zero products that do all we want and so encourage or obligate vendors to add features. This works quite well.

 

This can work with MIS too. Don’t be afraid to ask for something new or different and look at the roadmap, if you’re signing a multi-year contract the future roadmap and ability to deliver as well as absorb new ideas is pretty darn important.

[Mr.Ben]

@vikpaw This is a softer (and probably better) approach.

 

I'd be interested to hear how you obligated them - future payments or the ability to end the contract?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Mr.Ben

[PaulWP]

Hi Garacesh, I just wanted to share a bit about myself and my experience in education, so you can get to know where I come from a little better. I'm not a practitioner of education, but I've been involved in and around the industry since the 1980s, right up until 2022. Ultimately I'm a salesman and I'm really proud of what I've achieved in the education market for myself, my colleagues, and the many schools, trusts and LA's I've worked with.

 

As a result of a major project in Wales for the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly I co-founded an IT procurement framework called Think IT (now Everything ICT), which has been DfE approved for quite a while. The whole point of the framework was to make it easier for education clients to procure 'stuff' and protect them with the framework's terms and conditions that suppliers sign up to. During my time there, I met loads of suppliers from all areas of technology and services, so I know and come across a lot of people. Nowadays, I work with my girlfriend's family property business.

 

Regarding my sudden appearance on Edugeek and the overlap with Bromcom, it was just one of those things. I saw an article on LinkedIn that piqued my interest, and I knew all the parties involved, so I made a comment. If you get a chance to read it, you'll see that I've been impartial, with no direct finger-pointing. I simply pointed out what I consider to be the risk, how it had come about, and how to avoid it in the future. Just to clarify, I wasn't involved in the court case at any point, as you seem to be under the impression of. Honestly, I would've commented the same way no matter which parties were involved.

 

My blog on LinkedIn about Ethical Procurement is based on something I saw on a share/repost from people I knew. As I'm trying to reintroduce myself back into the education world, it presented itself as an opportunity for me. Mark from Bromcom asked if he could mention my blog on their Edugeek page and that's how my involvement restarted.

 

Regarding your comment about me not knowing much about MIS, you're totally right. I know enough to explain what it is, but not how it works.

 

As for Bromcom, people have already said in this thread that their product is good, so I don't think they need anything from me. Maybe it would be worth reaching out to them and seeing how they could create some sort of appropriate working group, although I can't imagine it would be easy with the potential for so many competitors in a room together.

Edited September 26, 2023 by PaulWP

[dmj]

I'm not sure which is more incredulous, that Edugeek allows racial slurs in usernames, or that the Bromcom PR guy chose it as his username.

[PaulWP]

Hi dmj, not a racial slur as far as I am concerned - its been my nickname for a very long time (my full name is Paul Wyatt-Pike). If it offends anyone then I apologise and will remove.

[dmj]

Hi dmj, not a racial slur as far as I am concerned - its been my nickname for a very long time (my full name is Paul Wyatt-Pike). If it offends anyone then I apologise and will remove.

 

Unfortunate.

[PaulWP]

It's memorable. I've lived most of my life in Yorkshire, so it wasn't as offensive as the South think it is. Even in my girlfriends family, everyone call me it. The double-barrelled bit was a pain though

[Garacesh]

Hi dmj, not a racial slur as far as I am concerned - its been my nickname for a very long time (my full name is Paul Wyatt-Pike). If it offends anyone then I apologise and will remove.

 

Unfortunately, 'round my end when I was growing up, 'Pikey' is indeed a slur towards travellers or gypsy communities. So much so that 'to pikey something' was one of the common allusions to theft, because they get stereotyped as such.

That being said after I saw your legal name I put two-and-two together and figured it wasn't malicious. But probably worthwhile for you to know

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't involved in the court case at any point, as you seem to be under the impression of.

 

Thank you for clearing that one up. I think I may have misconstrued the extent Steve21 implied your involvement with Bromcom when he said "Same with the linking to a blog of someone who has been directly advocating your court case on multiple previous occasions?". Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the text out of my earlier post but I'm hopeful that this correction can put my misunderstanding to bed.

 

However, I would point out that I think my previous point about you being viewed not as impartial or unbiased still stands. If you were to have pushed this of your own accord without Bromcom's input or funding, I could probably get behind it. Someone in the industry who, whilst not knowing much about MIS' in of themselves, has seen the discussions re: Bromcom, the lawsuits, and the idea of frameworks for procurement. If you'd have weighed in then, as you solo, or with other organisations without Bromcom? Yeah. I could buy that.

 

But Bromcom's made the first move. You just jumped in afterwards. You have to appreciate how staged that looks.

 

If this is as genuine as you portray it - and I'll be frank and say personally I don't think it is - then you've made one heck of an unfortunate blunder.

 

Given the negative sentiment towards Bromcom due to recent events, this comes across very much as an attempt by Bromcom to look altruistic that, when you dig a little deeper into it, smells of astroturfing, and an attempt to control the industry. It's throwing their toys out of the pram and attempting to manipulate behind the scenes. Just the use of that word.. Independent. When it clearly isn't. It just really rubs me the wrong way.

 

And given your lack of engagement on Edugeek until this thread, it comes across - and again I can only speak personally - as you being 'in on it'. Maybe indirectly. Maybe they genuinely found your blog post and wanted to share it because they felt it supported their position, and you've decided this could be a way to get your name out there more, just a healthy dose of good old-fashioned exposure, right? Pad out your CV some more, make a few contacts, whatever. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'm just a cynical old git. But it doesn't feel natural or uncoordinated.

 

I understand that public money is heavily scrutinised and with good reason. I agree that frameworks are a great way to stay above board during the procurement process, I've seen plenty of techs that I trust to be impartial and speak to the good of the industry promote them. I understand that some schools don't use frameworks, possibly because they either don't know about them or don't fully understand how they work. I completely agree that in this case, spreading awareness is a great idea.

 

But who's trying to spread it?

Are they acting in good faith?

 

I'm not sure this is it, chief.

[PaulWP]

Ok - going to be tough to convince you so:

 

The court case-when I left the industry in 2020, I don’t believe the Bromcom case had started. I came to know of it through a comment from Finnemore Consultants who I follow on LinkedIn. The circumstances of the case were interesting, and how things transpired was even more interesting, but only from a procurement perspective, not the particular parties involved. I had no axe to grind and there was no incentive, to do it other than my own. At that stage, I had no interest in getting back into edu so I wasn’t even trying to get my name back out there.

 

My Blog - again, as I mention right at the beginning of my blog, I only came by the subject via a few of my mates from the Wisdom Partnership, and the article author Finnemore Consulting. And yes, at that stage I considered making a play for getting my name out there again. It wasn’t a difficult subject to address, at least from my point of view. So I posted my blog, got a lot of impressions and a few likes, so I am sure Bromcom will have picked it up from that. They asked if they could refer to it on their Edugeek page/site and from there it’s all history…

 

Re Edugeek - My bad, I had forgotten all about my account - I favoured Twitter and LinkedIn at that time. Now I know what I am getting into, I will wear my battle armour from now on.

 

You mentioned about spreading the word about procurement, if it was me that was doing that spreading the word, it would never be about products, I tend to not know them well enough, so for me it would be more about practicalities and compliance with using frameworks. If there are blatant cases of poor procurement practise then yes, where I am capable of commenting, I will.

 

I kind of think I know where you are coming from regarding your concerns but hey, sometimes cynicism just can’t be broken.

 

My next Blog, which I will have hopefully finished tomorrow is nothing to do with MIS/Bromcom/Procurement, but it does relate to Edu but a massively different way to what I am use to. Oh and I will try and de-corporatise my language in my blogs/articles in future.

 

I have a question: ‘why does Bromcom have a bad rap? I thought their product was good?

[AlistairB1983]

I have a question: ‘why does Bromcom have a bad rap? I thought their product was good?

Whilst not wishing to appear to speak on behalf of others, I would say that generally the issues lie not with the product itself (which, by all accounts, does seem to have a good reputation) but rather the company behind it and more specifically how tarnished their reputation was by their court case.

 

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for/against the court case or the company itself, but simply put it has generated an extremely large amount of ill-will within parts of the community.

 

This is why this seemingly 'Independent' discussion on the whole process comes across as astroturfing, since it's being paid for by a company who (I assume) are acutely aware of the hostile feelings their actions have generated amongst certain sections of the community and would (I assume) be very keen to try and get the discussion onto other ground.

[vikpaw]

@vikpaw This is a softer (and probably better) approach.

 

I'd be interested to hear how you obligated them - future payments or the ability to end the contract?

Sorry @Mr.Ben missed this.

Usually put something in the contract to say it will be delivered by x date, added to the roadmap, or some such. Depending on your relationship it can be based on trust, but making it contractual, especially with a new supplier is the easiest way. There can be financial penalties for not delivering. I would advise against termination clauses. In my experience you rarely want to terminate and cease using a product because that is just a pain for you, and you're stuck with a change at an inopportune time plus all the hassle that comes with it. Of course, it will depend on the system and how widespread use it is / what it does, but certainly with an MIS, backing out is the last thing you want to do.

 

Other options are to do a PoC, possibly free of charge, to ensure a system does what you want. We've even paid extra for development of features that we really can't do without.