Becta's School MIS & Value for Money follow up!

[Sivadam]

..... if that is the case then I wonder why my posts were questioned/moderated/moved ......

[matt40k]

Alright... lets not get into that loop. I can't see this getting anywhere other then more moaning.

 

I could put this into school yard terms, but someone who moan saying little Bromcom was infact, not so little and should be refered to as a yr 10 rather then yr8 or some rubbish like that.

 

To me this looks like another PR campain against Capita, just around when Teacherwebfolder thing comes out... anyway, sorry to the EduGeek Team who'll prob get another company moaning at them.

[Sivadam]

That is also exactly what it seems to me ...........

......... which is where I came in ......

[pete]

I reckon it would be no contest and Nero would be offering a thumbs down to all but SIMS!

It would certainly sound the death knoll to some of the upstarts!

 

*discreetly hides lions in both changing rooms*

[Dancer]

The final bullet point BECTA are going to consider is the remote hosted solutions.

To me this seems slightly like them concluding that remote hosting solves many of the issues about transfering data between establishments/children services listed above it before they have carried out the review!

[Tonyoung]

B. Capita and OFT Cases:

It wasn't until 1999 that Bromcom for the first time approached the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in order to achieve interoperability between Bromcom’s EARS system and Capita’s MIS in schools. The OFT acted swiftly and instructed Capita to provide the necessary information and collaboration required for this (please see attached document 2).

 

QUOTE]

 

Hi Simay - having just read the document 2 there are a few points I don't understand and hope you can help me with ?

 

1) In October of last year you supplied us with a list of "Technical Documentation Requirements", setting out the information which you claimed Bromcom needed from Capita to develop its PTA. When this list was put to Capita, however, it emerged that the information, which you claimed Capita had refused to supply, had never in fact been requested by you. Dr Pukas expressed our concern in relation to this in his letter to Mr Bailey dated 23 March 1999.

 

Is this correct ?

 

2) Bromcom's allegation and Capita's reply raised a number of technical issues, which, as you know, we referred to an independent IT expert, Paul Griew. Mr Griew concluded that not all of the information which Bromcom requested was necessary for every application'.

 

Why request information you don't need ?

 

3) We firmly take the view, however, that this is best achieved by agreement between the parties and that the detailed terms of any such agreement are best left to the parties themselves. The Office is not, therefore, persuaded on the information currently before it that this is a matter in which it would be appropriate for the Director General to intervene.

 

This doesn't look like a positive response to your claim ?

[Mcshammer_dj]

In order to help us understand the real situation here it would be nice if the user Tonyoung could let us know who he is representing. There are clearly question that are being raised directly to Bromcom looking at his post.

[enjay]

In order to help us understand the real situation here it would be nice if the user Tonyoung could let us know who he is representing. There are clearly question that are being raised directly to Bromcom looking at his post.

 

I think it fairly clear from how he interchanges "Capita" and "we/our"; it would be appropriate to admit that though, you're right.

[matt40k]

Can someone just close this thread?

[Sivadam]

I second that ...................... !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I am amazed it has been allowed to go this far!

[localzuk]

Can someone just close this thread?

 

I second that ...................... !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I am amazed it has been allowed to go this far!

 

Sorry, but why?

[Sivadam]

..... one would have thought that was obvious .....

[Simay]

Sorry, but why?

 

 

1. The subject matter of this thread (essentially people’s views on Becta’s follow up review) is a matter which affects both MIS Suppliers and MIS Users. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums.

 

 

2. Having said so, postings which are just ‘scathing with no substance’ should of course be edited out. My earlier post (27/01/10) was made as an explanation to issues raised in the thread.

 

 

3. Tonyoung – we would be happy to respond to your queries if you can disclose who you work for.

[Mcshammer_dj]

1. The subject matter of this thread (essentially people’s views on Becta’s follow up review) is a matter which affects both MIS Suppliers and MIS Users. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums.

 

 

2. Having said so, postings which are just ‘scathing with no substance’ should of course be edited out. My earlier post (27/01/10) was made as an explanation to issues raised in the thread.

 

 

3. Tonyoung – we would be happy to respond to your queries if you can disclose who you work for.

 

Are you sure that thsi is the case when you are discussing the OFT action and not the Becta Review?

[Sivadam]

... there is no reason why it should not be discussed on EduGeek forums ....

 

 

Oh No!

 

Here he is again with what again appears to be yet more 'unauthorised' advertising .....

(Just my own humble opinion I may add! - I have been know to be wrong on occasions. I think the last time was in 1954!)

 

I hope that others keep their integrity and that the independents will see this as what I believe it is.

[enjay]

Here he is again with what again appears to be yet more 'unauthorised' advertising .....

 

Kind of makes you wonder who Noosh is too, a first-time poster starting what has become a Capita-slating thread...

[Sivadam]

Exactly!

 

It has been happening a long time. It is one of the reasons I started contributing. One does suspect that some of the posts that appear are, to say the least, mischevious!

 

I probably defend Capita more than I normally would as a direct result of some of these posts, which I completely disagree with!

[matt40k]

Kind of makes you wonder who Noosh is too, a first-time poster starting what has become a Capita-slating thread...

 

Don't know... Bromcom taken a hit. I would of called it 2 - 2... or am I not keeping up?

[enjay]

Don't know... Bromcom taken a hit. I would of called it 2 - 2... or am I not keeping up?

 

No, that's probably a more accurate score. The point I was trying to make was whether there is a genuine educational/technological discussion to be had, or just Company A trying to convince us techies that their dad is better than Company X's dad, as it were. So, when a first-time poster kicks off one of these threads, you have to wonder who they are and what their motives are.

[Tonyoung]

I am spartacus

[budgester]

I'm spartacus.

[Mcshammer_dj]

I am spartacus

 

Ah then in that case you clearly used to work for Lentulus Batiatus before going self employed in answer to the 3rd question that Simay asked LOL

[Tonyoung]

Ah then in that case you clearly used to work for Lentulus Batiatus before going self employed in answer to the 3rd question that Simay asked LOL

He was the Head at my old school in Capua

[skunk]

I agree with BECTAs overall sentiment, there are problems in the MIS market and here are a few:

 

There is nothing out there that is significantly better than the offering from Capita that would make me wish to go through the pain of switching MIS. Is it perfect, no far from it, but then I don't pay an annual six figure sum for the software. You pay peanuts.........

 

Secondly I imagine that most of the SIMS development budget goes into the ridiculous changes forced upon Capita (and all MIS suppliers) by the DCSF. How a startup company could cope with that I don't know. I am fully expecting a termly census on toenail growth to turn up shortly.

 

On a positive note however, the interoperability between my Bromcom server and SIMS server seems to be going fine.

 

I would love to be proved wrong on my first point and if someone can point me at a better (by a large margin) solution you will have my eternal gratitude.

[Sivadam]

..... I imagine that most of the SIMS development budget goes into the ridiculous changes forced upon Capita (and all MIS suppliers) by the DCSF.....

 

 

Well said!

 

And add some of the exam boards who often neglect to inform them about the need for new gradesets etc. etc........

 

And I ain't a 'techie', enjay - far from it!

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sivadam