Are BSF ICT Contracts Profitable for the ICT Companies?

[GrumbleDook]

Perhaps i wasn't clear on this, i of course appreciate the benefits of change management, but in large depts. change management can 'take over' and while necessary in many environments it can be frustrating as it can become a bureaucratic, tear-your-hair-out chore. And it centralized, managed IT change management starts from the centre and spreads out to the edge by design that's the life it takes on.

 

That almost sounds like you are sitting on the fence about change management

[torledo]

That almost sounds like you are sitting on the fence about change management

 

you were right tony, it sure is uncomfortable perched on this here fence.

 

[broc]

Q: Why is ICT part of BSF?

A: Because the Govt cannot afford to invest in ICT for schools any more than it can afford to build new schools, and offering IT managed services is a nice sweetener for PFI. You don't make a lot of money selling 'tin', but you can make money selling 'services'.

 

SLAs & Systems Management

 

In Corporate IT, many of the Systems Management disciplines and processes such as Problem, Change, Backup & Security etc etc have evolved to become a major, necessary part of the day-to-day operations, governed by SLAs. There are armies of consultants, professionals and administrators out there making a decent living performing these roles in large Enterprise organisations. As an ex-Corporate IT person myself, I have seen good and bad examples of these disciplines in action but in general I would say they are beneficial when implemented with a degree of common sense and designed to support the business and not inhibit change.

 

I think Systems Management has a place in school too, but like many things in school they have to be pitched at the right (ie affordable) level. Schools cannot afford to employ full time Systems Management staff, and expecting their IT staff to suddenly turn from poachers to gamekeepers by emulating the corporate IT model is fraught with difficulty. We should however adhere to the principles of Systems Management, and be prepared to implement at least some of the disciplines that it brings, such as problem/change management, DR/Backups etc.

 

Now, roll the clock forward a few years with BSF, and what will we have?

 

If we are not careful, we will have an IT environment in schools where everything is locked down, rigidly controlled with Systems Management processes implemented by the MSPs designed to minimise change and keep their costs down and their profits up. Innovation in schools will be limited because everything a school wants to do that is not part of woolly SLAs will come with a price tag that makes it too expensive.

 

To avoid this nightmare scenario, there are a couple of possible approaches we could take, or we could just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it as it won't be our problem.

 

We could:

 

1) try to kill off BSF

 

or

 

2) make sure that our schools are aware of the risks and ensure they are involved early enough in the BSF process to prevent the lock-down.

 

Personally, I think killing off BSF is a non-starter; the best (worst) that we could hope for is the program is reduced/delayed by lack of funding... but remember this means that children all over England will then continue to be taught in buildings well past their demolition date.... and quite frankly I am fed up with being snowed on in my office when the wind is in the wrong direction, which it is most days at the moment

 

I am not in favour of the heads-in-sand approach, even though in my own case I could easily tough it out until retirement......

 

I am in favour however in engaging in discussion with the LA, my school, other schools... in fact anyone who will listen; to fight for the best deal for my school while I remain an employee of the school. We need to fight fair, using reason and logic not emotion; we cannot afford to be dismissed as being motivated by self-interest and protecting our own 'empires'. Many of us will end up working for MSPs in some shape or another so we need to temper our arguments to avoid being branded as trouble-makers and ending up being side-lined or worse.

 

BSF is a political juggernaut, pretty much unstoppable. All we can do is try and steer it to where we (on behalf of our schools) want it to be.

[darlo_dave]

The companies getting the contracts have a simple reality to manage. If they cock-up then it does not get continued. And other LAs will look at how those companies have done elsewhere and decide whether they want to go for it.

 

It makes a change to see an "on-the-fence" post here and I praise you for it but I have to comment on the above statement. To take the contract from a company you have to prove, in a court, that they are in breach of contract. This sounds fairly simple if they haven't provided a good service but what you have to remember, and I've raised this before, is that the company will have the best business lawyers in the country whereas the LAs will have their own in-house legal team in their Tesco suits. This will make a difference because the best business lawyers in the country will put together a better case. However, if that's not bad enough you have to remember that these contracts will originally be drafted by the LA and the firms legal team. Now which legal team do you think will squeeze in most clauses to suit them?

 

It's a difference between paper law and trial law and anyone who has seen an LA legal team in action will know exactly what I mean.

 

The only way a big company will lose a contract like this is if they want to lose the contract. (See the exams fiasco of this summer for an example).

[conehead]

 

It's a difference between paper law and trial law and anyone who has seen an LA legal team in action will know exactly what I mean.

 

The only way a big company will lose a contract like this is if they want to lose the contract. (See the exams fiasco of this summer for an example).

 

Are you saying the SATS tests contracts were not profitable so they didn't mind losing the contract when it became clear they couldn't cope with the job profitably, or something more sinister?

[darlo_dave]

Are you saying the SATS tests contracts were not profitable so they didn't mind losing the contract when it became clear they couldn't cope with the job profitably, or something more sinister?

 

The exam board kept moving the goalposts (particularly in relation to the online training of markers). This made the contract either unprofitable or so much of a pain in the backside that it wasn't worth chasing the profit.

 

There's nothing sinister about it. It was just a screw up and it made sense for the company to get out while they could.

[broc]

All BSF contracts have a time limit, many are for 5 years, others for 10 years. If you reach the end of the contract and the service is poor, you don't renew.

 

Also, in most commercial outsourcing contracts, the client can cancel, albeit with penalties. I would imagine BSF contracts are (or should be) the same. Partnership for Schools have insisted that BSF contracts also have financial penalties included for failure to deliver the service at the agreed level.

 

Finally, in many LAs, their BSF schools are being done in batches, not all in the same wave. If a contractor fails to deliver during one wave of schools, the LA may choose to place other contracts elsewhere.

 

In practice, all of this sounds easier than it is; abandoning a BSF managed service will be painful whenever it is done and the service providers know this. That is why many IT solutions will aim to centralise servers & services, as it makes them a whole lot more painful and expensive for the client schools to withdraw from by moving assets & skills away from the schools.

[CyberNerd]

and in spite of everyone here playing nice and a small core being sharing and helpful why the blood hell don't we have more examples of policies and procedures in the wiki. If we are all so bloody good then when do we not have sample backup policies and procedures, maintenance check sheets, examples of checking audit trails ... the list goes on

 

I just added an example SLA, feel free to butcher it.

I'd like to see any BSF provider giving this level of service

(i'm not saying we always meet this level of service, but it's always a useful bargaining tool)

Sample SLA

[torledo]

I just added an example SLA, feel free to butcher it.

I'd like to see any BSF provider giving this level of service

(i'm not saying we always meet this level of service, but it's always a useful bargaining tool)

Sample SLA

 

On a daily basis:

 

ensure IT Suite systems are in good working order

 

too vague. I want an addendum to define the word 'good'. And you can't say 'opposite of bad' in the definition

[GrumbleDook]

It makes a change to see an "on-the-fence" post here and I praise you for it but I have to comment on the above statement. To take the contract from a company you have to prove, in a court, that they are in breach of contract.

 

Broc has pretty much covered what I was actually talking about (but didn't fully explain ... presuming that people knew about the limits of the contracts, etc ... my bad!)

[GrumbleDook]

I just added an example SLA, feel free to butcher it.

I'd like to see any BSF provider giving this level of service

(i'm not saying we always meet this level of service, but it's always a useful bargaining tool)

Sample SLA

 

Thanks for adding the SLA in. A good kick start ... any more.

 

(oh ... remember that SLAs should be realistic and reflect what you deliver ... otherwise the MSPs can do the exact same and you don't have a leg to stand on!)

 

Now ... come on ... I want a back up policy and example regimes.

[beeswax]

Broc has pretty much covered what I was actually talking about (but didn't fully explain ... presuming that people knew about the limits of the contracts, etc ... my bad!)

 

I feel I should point out that if a managed service provider fails for one reason or another, those who are tuped stay tuped. There's no going back to being employed by the school or the LA unless there's a complete about face by the powers that be.

[beeswax]

Now ... come on ... I want a back up policy and example regimes.

 

could have sworn I heard the crack of a whip just then.

[broc]

SLAs are agreements about levels of service that are to be delivered. They are negotiated by representatives of service delivery and the client. SLAs are not aspirational goals to be met on occasions when circumstances permit or purely by chance.

 

SLAs under BSF will result in the service provider being financially penalised for failure to deliver. They will have teeth, and the service level provider will do their best to keep them vague & woolly (as pointed out earlier by torledo) while the client should be pushing them as far as they will go. If schools do not engage in the BSF process early enough, the LA will probably decide what the SLAs will be, based upon what they think the schools need.....

 

Look around you... how many of our schools have SLAs between the LA, ISP, or any other organisation delivering a service to the school?

 

Are they really negotiated agreements, or are they in fact merely service delivery statements issued by the service provider to make the client feel cosy?

 

Is there anyone in your school qualified to negotiate SLAs that are worth the paper they are written on?

 

If you have an SLA, what happens if the service level fails to meet the target levels set in the SLA?

[broc]

I feel I should point out that if a managed service provider fails for one reason or another, those who are tuped stay tuped. There's no going back to being employed by the school or the LA unless there's a complete about face by the powers that be.

 

If a service were to be cancelled and brought back in-house it would be up to the schools/LA to offer their ex-staff the opportunity to return to their employment, and up to the staff to decide whether to go. It does happen in commercial outsourcing contracts, but you are correct in saying there is no obligation for the school or LA to re-employ staff previously TUPE'd.

 

A more likely prospect is that the loss of the service contract would result in some staff facing redundancy, courtesy of the TUPE ETO get out of jail card held by the MSP.

[darlo_dave]

All BSF contracts have a time limit, many are for 5 years, others for 10 years. If you reach the end of the contract and the service is poor, you don't renew.

 

But that's the problem, isn't it? Having to wait 5 or 10 years before changing. True competition comes from complete freedom of choice at point of delivery. If three months into the contract you realise it's crap but have to wait another 9 years 7 months then it's not really a help. A BSF contract makes the company the only coffee shop in town and it doesn't matter if they are the only coffee shop for 5 years or 10 years they are still the only coffee shop and they can serve you crap coffee without you being able to do anything about it.

 

Also, in most commercial outsourcing contracts, the client can cancel, albeit with penalties.

 

But again, penalties which would be defined in the original contract. A contract negotiated by LA Tesco Suit lawyers and BSF Saville Row Suit Lawyers. There will be only one winner.

 

My issue here isn't BSF. I actually think BSF, if done correctly, would be a great thing but I have no faith in LAs, PFI contracts or big companies to do it correctly. That's why I like freedom of choice. Yes, I'll buy a computer from you but if it's crap I'll buy the next one from somewhere else. Just like if I was hiring a technician, if (s)he was crap, I'd sack them and hire another one. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I was stuck with a supplier / technician. I don't do it with my electricity, gas, car insurance or mortgage so I'd hope that people wouldn't do it with my children's school.

[GrumbleDook]

If they serve crap coffee and the contract says they have to serve good coffee then there are penalties.

 

This is where lawyers earn their money and it is in the interest of the LA that *their* lawyers work hard at it. Remember that LAs are free to bring in more lawyers in and they also understand that procurement specific teams are a must. Early BSF waves have shown the importance of this.

 

The other thing about the contract ... yes, there are chances to drop it at set times (fail to renew) but this takes time. During the contract there will be continuous service reviews and this is where the SLAs and school representation comes in. If the contract is not going to be extended at teh 5 year point then I would expect at the 3 year point the LA and schools will start discussing options, followed by a year of sorting things out and then 6-9 months of transition to whatever is replacing it.

 

Part of the secret of a good contract is to have a good stick to beat the provider with, and deciding not to use it, but to discuss things in a grown up manner. The MSP are also going to want things to be flexible (but in their favour) but a contract that says "we have the choice to tell you to go away in year 5" says exactly that ...

 

Also remember that an annual sort of program doesn't work. You have little chance for planing for sustainability as each supplier coming in gets the chance to blame the outgoing one and also cost you more money.

 

And there is the final thing. The MSP gets vetted, has SLAs to work against and a contract with standards, policies etc ... this will get audited, have lots of people pushing to see whether it is doing the job and we come back to the word 'accountable' again.

 

What is there that says you have the same standards? Who watches the Watchmen? (or clips the ear of the naff neighbourhood watch in some cases!)

[broc]

My issue here isn't BSF. I actually think BSF, if done correctly, would be a great thing but I have no faith in LAs, PFI contracts or big companies to do it correctly. That's why I like freedom of choice. Yes, I'll buy a computer from you but if it's crap I'll buy the next one from somewhere else. Just like if I was hiring a technician, if (s)he was crap, I'd sack them and hire another one. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I was stuck with a supplier / technician. I don't do it with my electricity, gas, car insurance or mortgage so I'd hope that people wouldn't do it with my children's school.

 

 

Your views have been aired many times here on Edugeek and I along with many others share your concerns.

 

Unfortunately those of us who are further down the BSF road than many have come to realise that there is only one game in town, and that is BSF. As school based ICT staff, we only have two choices; work within the BSF framework, or get out altogether by seeking employment elsewhere.

 

Schools need the investment; most of it will be delivered via PFI, and a managed ICT service is part of the bundle that is BSF. School management and governors (many of whom are local councillors) cannot afford to turn down the investment in their schools over a point of principle such as ICT being managed or not.

 

I was a Chair of Governors at a secondary school that was part of wave 1. My fellow governors and the school SMT discussed at length the possibility of remaining independent as far as ICT was concerned, but is came down to the fact that we did not feel we could defend a decision to turn down £1m+ investment in school ICT just to retain control. This debate is being played out all over England. As far as I am aware, only one school in the whole of England has decided to reject managed services as part of BSF.

[GrumbleDook]

And that school has lost out on the money that goes with it at this time. (At this point the money has been shared by the other schools instead but I had heard the school was getting something out of it, but have had confirmed that if they are it is not from the LA, P4S or other such funds!)

 

Previously one school had put forward an alternative proposal which eventually was rejected, but there will be others that put alternatives forward.

 

I really want to see the first school that makes it through, and if the school that has dropped out had gone all the way I really do think they would have made it.

[darlo_dave]

This is where lawyers earn their money and it is in the interest of the LA that *their* lawyers work hard at it.

 

Which is my point all along... we're at the mercy of the LA lawyers. If they fail then BSF, for the children, fails. That's a dangerous position to be in.

[beeswax]

If a service were to be cancelled and brought back in-house it would be up to the schools/LA to offer their ex-staff the opportunity to return to their employment, and up to the staff to decide whether to go. It does happen in commercial outsourcing contracts, but you are correct in saying there is no obligation for the school or LA to re-employ staff previously TUPE'd.

 

A more likely prospect is that the loss of the service contract would result in some staff facing redundancy, courtesy of the TUPE ETO get out of jail card held by the MSP.

 

I was emphatically told by the bod responsible for negotiating our BSF deal that there was no chance of us being re employed by the schools. Now, saying never is not a clever thing, as we don't know what the future will bring, but I sometimes get the impression that our meetings are a necessary evil.

[PiqueABoo]

If they serve crap coffee and the contract says they have to serve good coffee then there are penalties.

 

Yes but that's a discount off the bill, it doesn't necessarily get you good coffee? And if it does taste like dishwater we'll probably still have people on both sides of the contractual fence claiming it's just like blue mountain.

[broc]

I was emphatically told by the bod responsible for negotiating our BSF deal that there was no chance of us being re employed by the schools. Now, saying never is not a clever thing, as we don't know what the future will bring, but I sometimes get the impression that our meetings are a necessary evil.

 

I think saying 'no chance' reflects the strength of political will behind BSF and managed services. The LAs need all schools to opt-in, because the very flakey financial business model that underpins BSF (and particularly ICT managed services) falls apart if schools decide to opt-out.

 

Like grumbledook, I look forward to the day a school is successful in its bid to achieve BSF funding without being part of a managed service. I don't hold out much hope however, having seen (as a Governor) how schools are 'leaned' on by the LAs.

 

As far as meetings with staff are concerned, it seems very little consultation has taken place with staff during the first few waves of BSF; I would like to think that this might improve with later waves, especially if school ICT staff stop burying their head in the sands and wake up to the reality of BSF and start to lobby their SMT and LA to be included in the discussions earlier and with greater involvement.

 

Also, be wary of the SMT that tells you they won't give in to BSF.... most will, when the Director of Childrens Services & LA tells them to. They won't put their jobs on the line to save yours

[broc]

Yes but that's a discount off the bill, it doesn't necessarily get you good coffee? And if it does taste like dishwater we'll probably still have people on both sides of the contractual fence claiming it's just like blue mountain.

You are right, and what use is it paying schools because the network has crashed and all the lessons are wiped out?

 

In any case, the managed services provider will have taken into account the chances of a school losing the network & them having to pay penalties and inflated their bid price to insure against having to pay out