Are ESS trying to make it harder to migrate away from to SIMS?

[Rob_D]

Because local SIMS support units are being told if they help people migrate by providing .bak files etc. they will have their contract to support SIMS cancelled plus threat of court etc.

I fear LEAs are being bullied in to the same position as schools. Not so much can't or won't help - more daren't help.

I might have it wrong, but reading between the lines I get the impression, there's also an element of ESS trying to depreciate self hosted/3rd party hosted SIMS in favor of ConnectEd/ESS hosted SIMS.

If true, it would mean any support providers helping clients move SIMS anywhere else would be doing so against instruction from ESS.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Rob_D

[dmj]

I might have it wrong, but reading between the lines I get the impression, there's also an element of ESS trying to depreciate self hosted/3rd party hosted SIMS in favor of ConnectEd/ESS hosted SIMS.

If true, it would mean any support providers helping clients move SIMS anywhere else would be doing so against instruction from ESS.

 

It's already clear from the license agreement that third parties cannot access SIMS. There is no hardware/software support unless you buy from ESS because the third party would have access to the DB which is against the T&C.

[Ditto]

Came across this today, seems ESS have been going legally after Capita too over SIMS in Northern Ireland https://www.whichmis.com/update-on-the-ess-capita-pirated-software-dispute/ .

What a mess - the legal people and going to have yet another Merry Xmas!

[bobsmith]

Couldn't happen to two nicer companies.....

[Rob_D]

It's already clear from the license agreement that third parties cannot access SIMS. There is no hardware/software support unless you buy from ESS because the third party would have access to the DB which is against the T&C.

Good point. But I think the next step (if they aren't already) is for ESS to start getting rid of self hosting options and pushing everyone into the ESS options.

Which makes total sense. If you're trying to move to proper cloud, you don't want legacy installs dragging you down.

[David44]

If you're trying to move to proper cloud, you don't want legacy installs dragging you down.

 

Or, one could argue, for customers to have direct access to their own database.

[bobsmith]

Good point. But I think the next step (if they aren't already) is for ESS to start getting rid of self hosting options and pushing everyone into the ESS options.

Which makes total sense. If you're trying to move to proper cloud, you don't want legacy installs dragging you down.

 

Is it legacy installs dragging them down or the fact they don't actually have a complete working MIS in the proper cloud?

 

 

 

It's been said before - but if the SIMS cloud offer is a ground up new MIS then it's a new product and schools should do a proper evaluation and potentially a tender process to decide their move.

 

ESS seem to be trying to skirt around that by "moving" customers to a combination of SIMS on remote desktop (SIMS connected) and bits of a true cloud offer (NextGen). What they should be doing is supporting the core SIMS until it's end of life then offer customers the option to consider moving to their new product or picking another one.

 

This obviously won't happen because a business does what's best for itself (and they don't actually have a complete cloud MIS yet)

[supportman]

Is it legacy installs dragging them down or the fact they don't actually have a complete working MIS in the proper cloud?

 

 

 

It's been said before - but if the SIMS cloud offer is a ground up new MIS then it's a new product and schools should do a proper evaluation and potentially a tender process to decide their move.

 

ESS seem to be trying to skirt around that by "moving" customers to a combination of SIMS on remote desktop (SIMS connected) and bits of a true cloud offer (NextGen). What they should be doing is supporting the core SIMS until it's end of life then offer customers the option to consider moving to their new product or picking another one.

 

This obviously won't happen because a business does what's best for itself (and they don't actually have a complete cloud MIS yet)

Yep you hit the nail on the head. If they started from scratch with a new system then they would be no where near in comparison with other MIS's and everyone would simply move.

 

So their strategy is to lock schools into contracts, scare them into not moving, tie them into a hosted solution and make it difficult to move away with claims of breaching copywrite.

 

This all comes back to the legacy code debt built up from years of poor development practices. Outsourcing development didn't help either!

 

I'm guessing there probably was a programmer somewhere saying they should fix the fundamentals before adding new features and the big scary outsourcing company ignored them and looked at the short term profits instead.

 

Then along came the private equity company thinking they were onto a cash cow stream of income that could be massively improved only to find the foundations were made of sand.

Edited November 20, 2024 by supportman

[psydii]

 

Then along came the private equity company thinking they were onto a cash cow stream of income that could be massively improved only to find the foundations were made of sand.

 

I think they knew what they were doing. All MIS vendors will benefit from SIMS doubling/tripping their price over the next decade. With the speed at which SIMS next gen is now improving, they may well have a competitive product before they drop below 30% market share. If they manage to keep 30% who end up paying 3x the old price, their revenue is *higher* than when they had 80% of the market, and the rest of the market can more rapidly raise their prices to achieve higher returns on investment than they would have if SIMS had continued into oblivion under the Capita/ESS.

 

I am very certain that Arbor would rather it were a three horse race. In a two horse race the competition commission is much more likely to take a dim view of the price hikes necessary to give the investors the returns they are expecting.

 

Of course if SIMS NG doesn't continue to improve at current rate, there is no chance SIMS will survive, investors in Montegu will take a haircut and Arbor (who owns them eh?) and Bromcom will compete head to head and have to be very careful on how they set pricing.

 

Indeed I think that if the market *doesn't* accept higher costs for MIS, Arbor might well be in trouble who as far as I can tell are still burning investors money. Bromcom at the current market rate manages to be solvent relying purely on revenue and assets.

 

(To summarise: SIMS can set what ever price they want - there is real competition and if the price is too high, customers can move. But if the rate of abandonment of sims slows *at all* it is an indicator that, at least some, of the market accepts that price. Which means there is room for Arbor and Bromcom to raise *their* prices too. As long as Arbor/Bromcom don't raise prices too swiftly, this will continue until another provider with deep pockets sees an opportunity to undercut/disrupt the market again. If they do raise prices too swiftly, or they get unreasonably high, DfE/Cabinet Office will likely step to spoil the party. The real winners will be Bromcom's owner, because Arbor and Montegu need the price to be higher, but Bromcom are profitable at the current rates.)

Edited November 20, 2024 by psydii

[dmj]

I Arbor (who owns them eh?)

 

Beagle Bidco LTD

 

£41M turnover apparently, and they bought RM Integris

[psydii]

Beagle Bidco LTD

 

£41M turnover apparently, and they bought RM Integris

I know.

 

When you have bidco/topco/midco in the ownership chain you can bet your bottom dollar the businesses you see (Arbor / The Key etc) are funded by leveraged buyouts or similar debt based financing.

 

There are/were similarly named entities in nest of companies between Montegu and Parent Pay too. (not suggesting any links between Arbor and Montegu, but that the "bidco" thing is common)

 

 

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/corporatecommercial-law/1024418/private-equity-comparative-guide

[DODICT]

Arbor is making money as has been for a while and you have to remember along with bromcom this is through a period of growth and lots of new customers coming on board. Many company’s lose money in those easily days of customers as you have to front load effort and resources to get them onboard. also have to consider the deals they have had to do to offset costs of overlapping contracts to combat sims 3 year deals etc. when the market settles down I think you’ll find both arbor and bromcom are doing well with prices as they are. What you will find is some of the heavily discounted tender responses getting adjusted closer to list pricing when contracts come round for renewal.